by Jeremy Neff | Jun 4, 2021 | General, Legislation
In early February, the Ohio House introduced HB 1. This bill, often referred to as the Cupp-Patterson Plan, proposes a significant overhaul of the State’s school funding system. Chief among its objectives is developing a per-pupil funding amount that reflects actual costs, moving away from caps and guarantees, committing to a longer-term plan, and accounting for localized needs. The plan was developed during the prior session of the General Assembly and seemed poised for serious action before COVID-19 disrupted the legislative agenda.
HB 1 has enjoyed broad support among education groups, including disparate groups such as the Ohio School Boards Association and the Ohio Education Association. After it fizzled in the last session, it was widely expected to be a major part of budget debates during the first year of the current session. Not surprisingly, under Speaker Bob Cupp (the “Cupp” of “Cupp-Patterson”) the House passed its budget proposal, HB 110, with HB 1 largely incorporated. The 70-27 vote on April 21 was somewhat bipartisan with 12 Democrats joining the Yeas and 6 Republicans joining the Nays.
Like the House, the Senate is dominated by the Republican Party, but this has not resulted in easy passage of HB 110 and Speaker Cupp’s school funding reform plan. The school funding plan under consideration in the Senate moves away from the six year phase-in of the House plan, and instead provides initially larger increases in per-pupil expenditures with no commitment to longer-term increases. Notably, the Senate plan abandons the highly localized per pupil funding calculations of HB 1, and instead determines a single base cost to apply throughout the state.
Statements from leading Senators indicate a concern that the House plan would lead to unsustainable funding increases. Of particular concern to these Senators is the use of teacher salary increases as part of the calculation in base costs. They argue that increases in pay even since development of the formula mean that costs have already increases by hundreds of millions of dollars. Supporters of the House plan point to a dramatically improved state economy and tax revenues well above estimates as reasons to support an increased commitment to K-12 education. Instead, the Senate budget plan currently proposes a 5% reduction in income taxes.
Both the House and Senate budget plans move to a direct funding system for various school choice programs. This would eliminate the current process that often requires funding to be directed to school districts only to be deducted when a family uses a voucher or enrolls in a charter school. The Senate plan proposes a significant increase in voucher funding and the elimination of some restrictions on the opening of charter schools.
What this means for your District:
Joint testimony from the Ohio School Boards Association, Ohio Association of School Business Officials, and the Buckeye Association of School Administrators has urged adoption of the House plan as part of HB 110. Among other reasons, they point to the longer-term commitments and growth in K-12 funding offered by the House plan. They also point to the extensive efforts to gather stakeholder input to develop the original Cupp-Patterson Plan. Finally, they identify the process of developing an actual input/cost-based approach to identifying appropriate per-pupil funding as critical.
The current state budget expires at the end of June. In most budget years this means the General Assembly passes the new budget during a late night session on or about June 30. However, it must be noted that the current state budget was not passed until nearly two weeks into July 2019 (after a temporary measure was passed to keep the government open). The time is now to share your views on the school funding reform plan, school choice funding, and other matters relevant to K-12 education. Current legislative activity is in the Senate. It is anticipated that in late June there will be a flurry of activity in both chambers as differences between House and Senate budget bills are resolved.
by Bronston McCord | Jun 18, 2020 | General, Labor and Employment, Legislation
On June 15, 2020, in the consolidated matters of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Altitude Express v. Zarda, and R.G.& G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, et al, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that an employer who fires an individual employee merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bostock began participating in a gay recreational softball league. Shortly thereafter, Bostock received criticism for his participation in the league and for his sexual orientation and identity generally. Shortly afterward, Clayton County terminated his employment. In Altitude Express, Zarda was fired days after mentioning he was gay. In Harris, an employee was fired after the employee informed the employer that the employee planned to live and work full time as a woman. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Looking to the ordinary public meaning of each word and phrase comprising that provision, the Court interpreted it to mean that an employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based, at least in part, on sex. Discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat employees differently because of their sex—the very practice Title VII prohibits in all manifestations. While it was argued that Title VII was never intended to be read with such a broad brushstroke, the Court found that the use of the word sex was unambiguous and supported its holding.
by Gary Stedronsky | May 14, 2020 | General, Legislation, School Management
On May 13, 2020, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld House Bill (HB) 70, which was passed in 2015 by the 131st General Assembly. HB 70 is a school takeover bill that gave sweeping powers to an appointed CEO in districts that struggled to meet overall state report card requirements.
The Youngstown City School District Board of Education argued that HB 70 was unconstitutional. HB 70 originally authorized schools to create community learning centers where academic performance was low. It was considered by the House on three separate days, after which it was ultimately passed by the House and went to the Senate for consideration.
The Senate considered the bill on three separate days also but made two amendments, one of which modified the structure of academic-distress commissions. Among other items, the amendment included a requirement that for any district that has received an overall grade of “F” on its state report card for three consecutive years, a commission must appoint a CEO who has “complete operational, managerial, and instructional control” over the school district. The Senate passed the amended bill and the House quickly concurred in the Senate amendments. The Governor signed the bill into law.
The Board of Education (along with its employee unions) sought a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction by challenging the constitutionality of the bill and the legislative process in enacting it. The Board of Education argued that the law violated an Ohio Constitutional provision that requires that every bill “be considered by each house on three different days,” and another provision that states that a city school district has the power “by referendum vote to determine for itself the number of members and the organization of the district board of education.”
The trial court ruled against the Board of Education, as did the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear the Board of Education’s appeal.
The Supreme Court found that the three-consideration provision in the Ohio Constitution was not violated. The Board of Education argued that the bill was substantially changed in the Senate from its original purpose of creating community learning centers. The Board of Education claimed that the amended bill must also satisfy the three-consideration provision of the Constitution. The Supreme Court disagreed. It found that a bill need not contain the exact same language in each of its three readings to be valid. “[A]mendments which do not vitally alter the substance of a bill do not trigger a requirement for three considerations anew of such amended bill.” Only where the subject or proposition of a bill is wholly changed must an amended bill satisfy the three-consideration provision.
In this case, the House and Senate each considered HB 70 on three different days. The Supreme Court found that the amended bill had a common purpose to the original bill of seeking to improve underperforming schools. Therefore, the amended bill that included the additional academic-distress commission provisions did not also need to satisfy the three-consideration provision of the Constitution.
As for the Board of Education’s other argument, the Supreme Court found that the Ohio Constitution governs the size and organization of school boards, not the power and authority conferred to them. Although HB 70 removed most of the Board of Education’s power, the Supreme Court found that the Constitution does not prevent that. Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld HB 70 and affirmed the judgments of the lower courts that ruled against the Board of Education.
HB 70 does not apply to the vast majority of Ohio school districts. However, it has been declared constitutional and will remain valid Ohio law until such time as the legislature amends it. Recent legislation has been proposed seeking to end school takeovers such as this (SB 89) or dissolve the academic-distress commission overseeing Lorain City Schools (HB 9). Neither of those legislative attempts have become law. Members of the General Assembly have indicated that they will continue to address the status of academic-distress commissions and school takeover. We will monitor those efforts and keep you updated.
by Jeremy Neff | Apr 17, 2020 | COVID-19 (Coronavirus), Legislation, Special Education
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was passed by Congress on March 27, 2020. Part of the act directs U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to submit a report to Congress. The report, that must be submitted by the end of April, is to make recommendations for any additional waivers that might be needed under IDEA, in direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic. There is reason to believe that a concerted effort on the part of school districts could result in much-needed flexibility during this unprecedented time.
The National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) and the Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE) jointly wrote a letter in anticipation of the report the DeVos will submit. The letter asks for flexibilities for specific IDEA provisions that have been affected by COVID-19. Those provisions include timelines, procedural activities, and fiscal management. Other groups, including parent groups pushing back hard against reasonable adjustments in light of the global pandemic, are also lobbying for what flexibility should entail.
Concerns that we are hearing from clients often center on flexibility related to evaluation timelines (especially initial evaluations), recognition that what constitutes a free, appropriate, public education during the health emergency need not match what would be provided under regular operations, and realistic expectations for compensatory education upon resumption of regular school operations. If you would like to contribute to the conversation on what the flexibilities might look like, now is the time. Get in contact with professional organizations to lobby for what you feel strongly about. Your opinion matters.
by Pamela Leist | Feb 3, 2020 | General, Legislation, School Finance, School Management
Efforts to curb the impact of EdChoice accelerated towards the end of January as legislators in the Senate and House searched for ways to reduce the negative financial impact that the program is anticipated to have on Ohio’s public schools starting next year. Legislators and the governor approved language in last year’s budget bill which was designed to dramatically increase the number of students eligible for the scholarships by more than doubling the number of eligible buildings. Prior to the program expansion, EdChoice was available in 31 school districts and 255 schools. After the expansion, EdChoice eligibility would have extended to at least 426 school districts and 1,227 schools.
Lobbying efforts and contacts from districts to their legislators and to House and Senate committee members to reduce the impact of the changes resulted in the last-minute action to delay implementation of the changes. The 2020-2021 application window for EdChoice would have opened on February 1st, of this year; now, the program application is delayed to April 1st. The House and Senate are expected to review the EdChoice program expansion in the next two months and hopefully will develop amendments to the budget expansion which will better support Ohio’s public school system.
The House initially proposed changes to EdChoice through HB 9. With a deadline of February 1st (the start of the applications of EdChoice scholarships) looming, the Senate passed alternative language late in the evening on January 29th. The Senate’s plan would have reduced the number of school buildings eligible under the traditional EdChoice program, but would also have increased the number of families eligible for the EdChoice expansion program by changing eligibility from 200% to 300% of the federal poverty guidelines for the income-based vouchers.
The bill was sent back to the House, which rejected the changes, and a conference committee convened. The House elected instead to pass House Bill 120, including language delaying the EdChoice application window until April 1st. HB 120 also contained separate provisions that authorize the auditor’s office to conduct performance audits of all state institutions of higher education and also modified requirements for College Credit Plus informational sessions. The bill included an appropriation of $10 million to help fund the EdChoice program. The Senate passed HB 120 on January 31st and the governor signed the bill the same day. The bill is considered an emergency measure and is effective immediately. This move buys the legislature more time to develop a plan that both houses are willing to pass.
February 3rd, 2020 Update: A group of families and private schools filed a lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court challenging House Bill 120 changes to EdChoice. The lawsuit alleges that the legislature failed to properly execute an emergency measure and therefore HB 120 should not go into effect for 90 days. The parties also claim that the HB 120 application delay will cause irreparable harm to new EdChoice eligible students who planned to apply for the scholarship. If successful, the state may be forced to accept applications starting February 1st.
We will keep you posted on developments. The education associations have sent out multiple calls of action on the bills and you are encouraged to continue to stay apprised of developments and let your legislators know how the expansion would affect your district.
by Pamela Leist | Sep 26, 2019 | Board Policy & Representation, General, Labor and Employment, Legislation, School Management
The Sixth District Court of Appeals delivered a win to school districts recently when it reversed a lower court’s decision ordering the Perkins Local School District to reinstate a former teacher who had been terminated with an award of $367,202.52 in lost wages and benefits. The case was brought by former teacher and coach Tracey Hiss. Hiss was terminated for cause after the district learned she supplied several members of her girls track team with Lidoderm patches – prescription patches containing lidocaine that help with pain relief.
When the superintendent learned of the allegations, he met with Hiss and subsequently placed her on paid leave pending further investigation. He also reported the allegations to the police, who subsequently charged her with a minor misdemeanor for her actions. The district held a pre-disciplinary hearing and the superintendent sent notice of his intent to recommend termination. Hiss, through legal counsel, objected to some of the reasons listed in the notice because they had not been addressed at the pre-disciplinary hearing. The superintendent subsequently held another pre-disciplinary hearing and again recommended termination which the board approved. Hiss requested a hearing to challenge the board’s intent to terminate before a state appointed referee. At the termination hearing, Hiss introduced evidence of an incident where a prior coach, Crabtree, had given a student Tylenol to help reduce pain. She argued that the board should not have terminated her contract due to the fact that this teacher merely received a reprimand and a brief suspension from coaching, where she was being terminated.
After conclusion of the five-day hearing, the referee issued his report and recommendation that the board terminate Hiss’s teaching contract. In making this recommendation, the referee found that the board had sufficient policies prohibiting teachers from both possessing and distributing controlled substances and medicines to students without a parent’s permission.
Shortly thereafter, the Board adopted the referee’s recommendation and passed a resolution to terminate Hiss’s teaching contract. Hiss then appealed this decision to the common pleas court. The court applied the Daughtry test of good and just cause, concluding that the board lacked cause to terminate Hiss’s contract. The court focused in particular on the fact that Crabtree, who had engaged in similar behavior, received a much less severe discipline. The district appealed, claiming in part that the court of common pleas abused its discretion in applying this new test and effectively usurping the role of the ODE referee.
On appeal, the Sixth District Court of Appeals agreed that the court of common pleas abused its discretion when it substituted its own judgement in place of the board of education. The court of appeals concluded that the court’s reliance on the Daugherty test to define “good and just cause” was misplaced. The court reasoned that, while an arbitrator may use the Daugherty test to determine the standard of good and just cause in a labor-arbitration matter, the Ohio Supreme Court has failed to adopt the Daugherty test in just cause teacher termination cases. Thus, the common pleas court exceeded its authority by relying on the Daugherty test as opposed to the cases interpreting R.C. 3319.16 as to whether good or just cause exists.
Examining the merits of the case, the court also determined that Hiss’s misconduct was , a “fairly serious matter” that falls within the realm of good and just cause for termination under R.C. 3319.16. Hiss repeatedly gave prescription pain medicine to students in direct violation of district policy that could have ultimately caused serious harm to the students. The court opined that this added to the fact that the board of education complied with procedural requirements of R.C. 3319.16 by providing Hiss with two informal hearings as well as a hearing before the referee justified the board’s decision to terminate. Therefore, the board’s earlier decision to terminate Hiss’s teaching contract was reinstated.
