by Jeremy Neff | Jun 24, 2019 | General, Legislation, Student Education and Discipline
The use of restraint and seclusion in schools continues to be a high priority for state and federal policy makers. Ohio’s first regulations specifically addressing restraint, seclusion, and positive behavior intervention and supports took effect in 2013 as Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3301-35-15. In June 2018, the General Assembly passed House Bill (HB) 318, also known as “the SAFE Act”. This law addresses a variety of student discipline issues, including a requirement to rewrite Ohio’s restraint and seclusion regulations.
Ohio Administrative Code 3301-35-15 was due for review by August 2018, but the process has not been completed. HB 318 set a deadline for revision of OAC 3301-35-15 by early February 2019. Again, no revisions were made. However, work is ongoing at the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) and various stakeholder groups are being presented with draft rule revisions this summer. It is anticipated that in the coming months, there will be a proposed rule presented for public comment and consideration by the State Board of Education.
In the meantime, existing requirements for the use of restraint and seclusion remain in place. This includes absolute restrictions on certain practices, and significant data tracking and reporting requirements. The summer “break” is a good time for administrators to review existing training programs, plan for which staff members may require additional training due to student assignments and program changes, and review reporting data for the recently completed school year to determine if there are any patterns or gaps that need to be addressed.
While the use of restraint and seclusion generally should be rare, consistent reports of zero incidents may raise a red flag. A recent report from the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that nine of the nation’s 30 largest school districts reported no incidents of restraint or seclusion in the last reported year (2015-2016). The GAO and U.S. Department of Education presume that such reports are inaccurate, with the GAO reporting that, “We are encouraged that Education recognizes the seriousness of this issue and the data quality issues it has allowed to persist when districts inappropriately and inaccurately report zero incidents of restraint and seclusion.”
In addition to whatever new requirements might be rolled out by the U.S. Department of Education to address its concerns, long-proposed federal legislation is expected to be reintroduced later this year. The bill, called the “Keeping All Students Safe Act,” is likely to overlap significantly with Ohio’s restraint and seclusion regulations.
by Pamela Leist | Mar 30, 2018 | Labor and Employment, Legislation
The Ohio House of Representatives is expected to vote on a bill that would create a license for individuals to serve as substitute pupil services personnel. HB 491 passed in the House Education and Career Readiness Committee on March 21 by a vote of 16-0. The bill enacts a new section of the Revised Code (3319.2210) that would require the state board of education to issue a substitute license to individuals who meet certain criteria and wish to serve as substitutes in the following positions:
- Speech language pathologists
- Audiologists
- Registerd nurses
- Physical therapists
- Physical therapist assistants
- Occupational therapists
- Occupational therapist assistants
- Social workers
The current version of HB 491 would require the superintendent to request and recommend an individual for the new license. Any candidate who wishes to obtain the license must submit both a copy of a valid occupational license as well as all materials necessary to complete a criminal background check. The license may include a term of 1–5 years as determined by the state board. The state board is prohibited from requiring any additional qualifications beyond those listed in the statute. A school district may only hire a substitute license holder in a substitute capacity.
The Ohio House will meet again during the second week in April, when it is expected to vote on this bill.
by Pamela Leist | Dec 28, 2017 | Legislation
HB 170 provides the option for secondary schools to offer instruction in computer science. After the bill passed in the House, the Senate amended it, and the House then reviewed and agreed to the changes. Gov. Kasich signed the bill on December 22.
Model curriculum
The bill requires the State Board of Education to adopt academic content standards and a model curriculum for computer science for grades K–12, including standards for introductory and advanced computer science courses in grades 9–12. Any school district or school may use these standards and curriculum, or any part of them, but no school would be required to use them in whole or in part.
Units of instruction
A unit of computer science may be substituted for a unit of math or science but may not take the place of biology or life science courses. Advanced computer science may take the place of algebra II. However, the district must inform the student and his or her parents that secondary institutes may require completion of algebra II as a prerequisite to admission. Parents must sign a statement acknowledging that not taking algebra II may have an adverse effect on college admission. Career-tech students are still permitted to complete a career-based pathway mathematics course in lieu of algebra II or computer science.
Teacher licensure
Schools may employ only individuals who are licensed in computer science or those who have a license endorsement in computer technology and a passing score on a computer science content exam to teach computer science courses. Additionally, licensed educators who qualify for a supplemental teaching license for computer science may teach computer science courses; these educators may advance to a standard educator license, after teaching computer science for at least two years, by completing a pedagogy course in the applicable grade level.
To teach advanced placement computer science courses, the educator must complete a professional development program endorsed or provided by the organization that creates and administers national advanced placement exams.
Fund
School boards may establish a computer science and technology fund to support computer science programs and professional development. The fund may include district or school funding, private funding, and future state funding, as long as these funds may legally be used for this purpose and are not designated for something else. This fund may be used for professional development, online assessments including instruction and data that support these assessments, wireless connectivity, network services, computer equipment purchases, and leveraging or matching additional private donations.
Auxiliary services funding
Private, nonreligious charter schools are permitted but not required to receive auxiliary services funding directly rather than from the local school district. In this case, these schools may contract with the local districts for certain health, support, scoring, and security services for which the funding may be used. After the end of each biennium, if the funding was insufficient, these schools may apply to ODE for funds to make up the difference.
by Bronston McCord | Dec 8, 2017 | Legislation, School Management
The Senate Education Committee has announced a fourth hearing on Senate Bill 216 to be held on Wednesday, December 13, at 9:45 a.m. in the North Hearing Room of the Senate Building in Columbus. The time of the meeting has been changed to allow for a longer meeting, as a large volume of testimony is expected. A number of school superintendents have provided testimony at previous hearings. It is rumored that the Education Committee Chair, Sen. Peggy Lehner, is opposed to at least some of the bill provisions. If the bill is not referred out of the Senate Education Committee before their December break, there might be closed, interested party meetings (instead of open hearings in committee) into January.
How to Provide Testimony
Anyone who is interested in providing testimony for next week’s hearing, whether oral or written or both, may do so by completing and sending an Education Witness Slip and written testimony to kate.rossman@ohiosenate.gov no later than 24 hours prior to the committee hearing. The committee is anticipating a large volume of testimony, so requests will be granted on a first-come, first-served basis. Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes (2–3 pages written).
First Hearing
The first hearing was held on October 18. The sponsor of the bill, Sen. Matt Huffman, introduced the bill to the Education Committee. He noted that burdensome paperwork and tedious tasks distract teachers and superintendents from their primary role of educating students. Sen. Lehner said that although a number of things may be cumbersome, there may be valid reasons to keep them, such as the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA).
Second Hearing
At the second hearing on November 8, several superintendents and other supporters of the bill provided testimony that the proposed changes will remove “unnecessary burdens” that draw attention away from teaching and learning. School leaders and teachers argued that they can more effectively educate students without the overwhelming number of regulations that dictate how schools should be run. Specific provisions supported:
- College Credit Plus – specifically, the cost of textbooks
- Teacher licensure – narrow grade bands make it difficult to fill substitute and regular positions
- Testing changes
Third Hearing
The third hearing, on December 6, was for opponent and interested party testimony. At this hearing, State Superintendent Paolo DeMaria called the bill “a step backward” and “a reactive approach.” He testified as an interested party, noting that he had considered each provision of the bill and whether it would benefit students. He opposed many of the changes in the bill, including the following:
- Eliminating the KRA
- College Credit Plus and requiring ODE to study the effectiveness of CCP
- Changes to substitute teacher licensure
- Eliminating number of excused absences from “excessive absences”
- Eliminating the student growth measure from OTES
- Changes to grade bands for licensure
In all, 13 individuals provided testimony at the third hearing, mainly in opposition to removing the KRA and the licensure grade band changes. Several others were prepared to provide testimony, but because of the length of the meeting, they were asked to come back for the fourth hearing.
Overview of SB 216
For an overview of SB 216, introduced on October 10 by Ohio Sen. Matt Huffman, refer to our previous blog post, Unboxing the Education Deregulation Bill: What’s Inside SB 216.
by Ryan LaFlamme | Nov 30, 2017 | Legislation, Workers’ Compensation
The General Assembly is currently considering three different Workers’ Compensation bills that may affect schools. These bills will most likely undergo changes during the deliberation process. The summary below describes the provisions of each of these bills as initially introduced. As of November 29, each bill has had two hearings in the House Insurance Committee. Stay tuned to Ennis Britton for updates on this and other legislation. Contact an Ennis Britton attorney if you have any questions regarding how these may affect your school district.
HB 268
Requires the Administrator of Workers’ Compensation to waive a requirement that an employer have sufficient assets located in Ohio to qualify for self-insuring status if the employer holds a rating of B3 or higher according to Moody’s or a comparable rating from a similar agency. An employer that is granted self-insuring status through the waiver is subject to the same requirements that self-insuring employers are subject to under current law. This includes requirements to pay assessments based on the amount of the employer’s paid compensation as defined in continuing law and to provide a surety bond sufficient to pay claims, except that the employer must contribute to the Self-Insuring Employers’ Guaranty B Fund created under the bill (discussed below) instead of the Self-Insuring Employers’ Guaranty Fund (SIEGF) under current law.
Allows all self-insuring employers to purchase private workers’ compensation insurance to cover any workers’ compensation claim from an insurer that has an A.M. Best Financial Strength Rating of A or higher. Current law voids most contracts or agreements that indemnify or insure an employer against workers’ compensation claims. A self-insuring employer may, however, purchase an insurance policy that indemnifies against all or part of the employer’s loss in excess of $50,000 from a single disaster or event arising out of the employer’s workers’ compensation liability. But the insurer cannot, directly or indirectly, represent the employer in any settlement, adjudication, determination, allowance, or payment of workers’ compensation claims. The bill eliminates this prohibition.
Creates the Self-Insuring Employers’ Guaranty B Fund, which consists of contributions and other payments made by employers granted self-insuring status as a result of the waiver. The fund created under the bill secures compensation and benefits for employees of a self-insuring employer who is granted the waiver but who defaults on the obligation to make direct payments. The Administrator of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation must establish a contribution amount each year and require every employer that is granted self-insuring status through the waiver to pay the established contribution to the fund. Contribution rates are to be as low as possible but must be sufficient to ensure enough money in the fund to guarantee the payment of any claims against the fund.
HB 269
Requires employees who receive Temporary Total Disability (TTD) benefits to comply with a return-to-work plan. TTD is a wage loss benefit designed to compensate employees who are temporarily unable to perform the functions of their jobs due to a workplace injury. Employees receiving TTD essentially get two-thirds of their wages tax-free. This bill will require the BWC administrator to develop a return-to-work plan for each employee receiving TTD. The plan will have the goal of returning the employee fully to the former position of employment, to return the employee to the former position of employment on a part-time basis or on a full-time basis with modified duties, or retraining the employee to work in another position. The employees’ progress with the plan will be evaluated every 90 days. Evaluations will also determine whether the plan needs revision. If the administrator determines that the plan does not need to be revised and that the employee is not complying, TTD benefits may be suspended.
Employees in compliance with the plan will continue to receive TTD benefits until such benefits are terminated in accordance with law.
Incentivizes employers for participation in safety consultations and loss prevention programs. This provision will modify and enhance the incentives for employers to participate in safety and loss prevention training, including premium discounts and other measures.
Makes changes to Permanent Total Disability (PTD) and death benefits. PTD is a benefit designed to compensate employees who are totally disabled from working, on a permanent basis, due to a workplace injury. PTD benefits are paid for life to employees who cannot engage in any form of sustained remunerative employment using the employment skills that the employee has or may reasonably be expected to develop, and to employees who have lost multiple body parts or the use of multiple body parts.
Pursuant to the bill, employees who receive PTD benefits and who reach full retirement age will have their PTD replaced with Extended Benefit (EB) compensation. “Full retirement age” is defined as the age at which an employee is eligible for unreduced retirement benefit from a state retirement system (PERS, STRS, SERS, OPERS, etc.), or the age at which an employee reaches full retirement age for purposes of the Social Security Act. Employees who are at or within one year of full retirement age will receive PTD for two years before the benefit is converted to EB.
EB is paid as a percentage of the PTD benefit that the injured worker received prior to reaching full retirement age. For example, at least one year but less than two years of PTD will convert to an EB of 10 percent, whereas an employee with ten years or more of PTD will receive 100 percent. PTD is calculated by a formula that essentially works out to two-thirds of an employee’s wages, subject to certain caps and other rules. Employees who receive EB compensation will receive an annual 2 percent increase.
Additional death benefits are provided by the bill. In addition to the benefits under current law, the bill adds a $35,000 lump sum payment to be apportioned among dependents if there are more than one. The bill also provides for a $5,000 scholarship payable to dependents annually for up to four years. Dependents cannot receive the scholarship until they receive a high school diploma or GED.
HB 380
Prohibits illegal and unauthorized aliens from receiving compensation and certain benefits. This bill adds to the definition of “employee” for purpose of workers’ compensation law. Under current law, employee is defined broadly as “every person in the service of any person, firm, or private corporation, including any public service corporation, that employs one or more persons regularly in the same business or in or about the same establishment under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, including aliens.” This bill qualifies that definition to include only aliens authorized to work by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Under the bill, “illegal alien” means an alien who is deportable if apprehended because of one of the following: (1) The alien entered the United States illegally without the proper authorization and documents. (2) The alien once entered the United States legally and has since violated the terms of the status under which the alien entered the United States, making that alien an “out of status” alien. (3) The alien once entered the United States legally but has overstayed the time limits of the original legal status.
The bill defines “unauthorized alien” as an alien who is not authorized to be employed as determined in accordance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
Update
On November 29, the House Insurance Committee adopted an omnibus amendment from the sponsor of HB 380 and then voted to accept the bill.
The amendment eases some of the policies that were controversial and contentious for opponents of the bill, such as employee advocates. One of the main provisions in the amendment allows a U.S. citizen who is a dependent of an undocumented worker to receive a death benefit in the event of the worker’s death, equal to the amount entitled to the dependent of a U.S. citizen.
The amendment also adds language that creates a rebuttable presumption that a worker was hired with legal working status.
Next, the bill will go before the full House for a vote and is expected to pass with ease.
by Hollie Reedy | Oct 16, 2017 | Legislation
Senate Bill 216, introduced on October 10 by Ohio Sen. Matt Huffman, is the culmination of a collaboration of legislators and school superintendents, including a working group of a BASA committee and more than 40 superintendents from Senate District 12. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Education Committee and is scheduled for its first hearing on Wednesday, October 18. SB 216 was drafted specifically to eliminate many unnecessary regulations and to simplify many areas – such as substitute and aide licensure – that have become overly burdensome from a regulatory standpoint. Following is a summary of the provisions in SB 216.
| State assessments |
Adds language that would force the American Institutes for Research to explain how questions on all prescribed state assessments for all grade levels relate to the academic content standards starting with 2018–19. Also requires AIR to provide districts with practice tests, study guides, and other prep materials. |
R.C. § 3301.78 |
| State assessments |
Eliminates kindergarten diagnostic assessments for reading, writing, and math. |
R.C. § 3301.079 |
| State assessments |
Adds language that prohibits requiring districts to administer assessments for grades 3, 4, and 5 online, and permits districts to choose paper format for the assessments or any combination of online and paper assessments on a student-by-student basis. Adds language defining “other public school” as a community school, STEM school, or college prep boarding school. |
R.C. § 3301.0711 |
| EMIS |
Eliminates the need to report kindergarten assessments in EMIS after the effective date of the statute amendments (since the kindergarten assessment will be eliminated). |
R.C. § 3301.0714 |
| Kindergarten readiness assessment |
Eliminates the ODE-provided kindergarten readiness assessment. Eliminates the ability of ODE to use the kindergarten readiness assessment data to calculate the district’s letter grade for improving literacy in K–3. Adds a new requirement for this school year (2017–18) for any district in which less than 80% of students score proficient or higher on the third-grade English language arts assessment to establish a reading improvement plan supported by reading specialists. The district board of education shall approve it before it is implemented. |
R.C. § 3301.0715 |
| Kindergarten diagnostic assessment |
Eliminates requirement for chartered nonpublic schools to administer kindergarten diagnostic assessments. |
R.C. § 3301.163 |
| Compliance checklist |
Requires ODE to establish, distribute, and monitor a “school mandate report” for districts, which would complete and file the report annually. Districts would note compliance with mandates by checking “yes” or “no”. If not in compliance, a district will provide an explanation to its board of education within 30 days as to why the item is not completed along with a written action plan to address the problem. The checklist will include whether the district is in compliance with
Ø training on use of physical restraint or seclusion,
Ø training on harassment, bullying, and intimidation,
Ø CPR and AED training,
Ø crisis prevention training,
Ø establishing wellness committees,
Ø establishment and review of school emergency management plan, and
Ø compliance with nutritional standards. |
R.C. § 3301.68 |
| State report card |
Eliminates requirement that districts where less than 5% of students have scored below grade level on the kindergarten assessment receive no letter grade in K–3 literacy. |
R.C. § 3301.02 |
| Educational choice scholarship program |
Changes eligibility for scholarship to students in buildings where a D or F on was received on improving K–3 literacy in the last 2 of 3 years to grade 1–3 improving literacy. |
R.C. § 3310.03 |
| Third-grade reading guarantee |
Eliminates kindergarten reading assessment for purposes of third-grade reading guarantee. |
R.C. § 3313.608 |
| Professional development standards |
Adds language as to what professional development standards are to be used to guide development of professional growth plans and improvement plans resulting from teacher evaluations. |
R.C. § 3319.075 |
| Nonteaching employee continuing contract |
Modifies the contract sequence for nonteaching employees and delays eligibility for a continuing contract. A new hire first receives a 1-year contract, followed by three 2-year contracts. At the end of the third 2-year contract, if the contract is renewed, the nonteaching employee would receive a continuing contract. |
R.C. § 3319.081 |
| Educational assistant and educational paraprofessional license/permits |
Changes to educational assistant and educational paraprofessional license/permits:
Ø Adds language to the definition of “educational assistants”: nonteaching employees working in a federally funded program that directly assist a teacher.
Ø Requires ODE to issue educational aide permits and educational paraprofessional licenses for educational assistants who undergo a criminal background check without any of the offenses listed in current law (3319.31(B) and (C)).
Ø Removes language that allowed ODE to prescribe minimum qualifications including special training of education courses and qualifications for education, health, and character. Retains the language that the ODE rules may provide for licenses of several types.
Ø Provides that nonteaching employees that substitute as educational assistants are not required to hold an educational aide permit or educational paraprofessional license. |
R.C. § 3319.088 |
| Teacher evaluations |
Changes to teacher evaluations:
Ø Provides that boards must update their standards-based teacher evaluation policy by July 1, 2018, to conform to the framework adopted under 3319.112, which will become operative when the collective bargaining agreement in effect on the effective date of the amendment expires (and must be included in renewal or extension of such agreements).
Ø Eliminates requirement to use value-added data and provides that student performance data used as evidence in a teacher’s evaluation must be considered “high quality student data.”
Ø Teachers rated “accomplished” on their most recent evaluation may still be evaluated once every 3 years as long as they submit a self-directed professional growth plan which focuses on specific areas identified in the observations and evaluations AND the evaluator determines that progress is being made on the plan. Removes language that states that the student academic growth measure must be average or higher for the most recent year that data is available for the teacher to remain eligible for the evaluation exemption.
Ø Skilled teachers may still be evaluated once every 2 years as long as the teacher and evaluator jointly develop a professional growth plan which focuses on specific areas identified in the observations and evaluations AND the evaluator determines that progress is being made on the plan. Removes language that states that the student academic growth measure must be average or higher for the most recent year that data is available for the teacher to remain eligible for the evaluation exemption.
Ø For accomplished or skilled teachers, in any year the teacher is not formally evaluated, the teacher will receive one observation and one conference with a qualified evaluator. Adds language that the conference must include discussion on progress on the teacher’s professional growth plan.
Ø Removes language that allows a board by resolution to require only one formal observation of accomplished teachers as long as the teacher completes a project to demonstrate continued growth and practice at the accomplished level. |
R.C. § 3319.111 |
| Standards-based evaluation framework |
Changes to standards-based evaluation framework:
Ø Requires ODE to revise the state framework based on the ESB recommendations, and the state board to adopt an updated framework by May 1, 2018.
Removes from the framework:
Ø The student growth measure as a component of the final evaluation rating
Ø The requirement to use the value-added progress dimension as a component of the final evaluation rating for teachers who teach value-added courses
Ø ODE’s list of student assessments that measure mastery of course content for grade levels and subject for which the value-added progress dimension or alternative student academic progress measure do not apply
Adds to what the framework must include:
Ø Use of student assessment instruments approved by the board of education
Ø A prohibition on use of shared attribution of student performance data among all teachers in a district, building, grade, content area, or other group
Ø A professional growth or improvement plan for a teacher that is based on the results of the evaluation and is aligned to the district or building improvement plan created in accordance with ESSA
Adds to what ODE must do to assist districts with the evaluation framework:
Ø Provide guidance on how high-quality student data may be used to attribute student learning to a particular teacher with examples of appropriate use of the data under the framework
Ø Provide guidance on how student surveys, peer review evaluations, teacher self-evaluation, and other components “determined appropriate by the district” may be used as part of the evaluation process
Ø Requires ODE to update the framework by July 1, 2018 |
R.C. § 3319.112 |
| Teacher licensure |
Adds language that the resident educator license, professional educator license, senior professional educator license, and lead professional educator license shall state whether the license is K–8 or 6–12. |
R.C. § 3319.22 |
| Substitute teaching educator licenses |
Requires ODE to issue substitute educator licenses only under new section of the Revised Code. ODE is to adopt rules on the standards and requirements for issuing a substitute license and renewing the license, but the rules for obtaining a substitute license may not require an applicant to hold a post-secondary degree in any specified subject area and may not restrict the number of school days a substitute teacher may work. Existing substitute licenses would remain in effect until expiration, after which they would be subject to the terms of this new section.
This means that short- and long-term substitute licenses would no longer be used. |
R.C. § 3319.226 |
| Licensure and employment |
Superintendents may employ a licensed teacher to teach a subject area and/or grade level for which the person is not licensed. |
R.C. § 3319.361 |
| Truancy law |
Change to new truancy law (HB 410)
Ø Only unexcused absences would count toward requirement to provide parental notification of excessive absence (38 hours in one school month, 65 or more in one school year). Removes excused absences from being counted toward the threshold level for parental notification. |
R.C. § 3321.191 |
| Preschool staffing ratios for children with disabilities |
Reduces the staffing ratio requiring a full-time staff member from 16 to 12 for half-day preschool children with disabilities (retains the ratio of 8 full-day preschool children with disabilities to one full-time staff member).
Adds new language that a minimum of 10 hours of services per week will be provided for each child served by a center-based teacher unless an IEP specifies otherwise. |
R.C. § 3323.022 |
| Gifted education |
Prohibits ODE, in a new section of the Revised Code, from adopting any rule that would require a person with an educator license who is designated as a provider of gifted services but does not have a license or endorsement for gifted education from having to complete professional development related to gifted education. |
R.C. § 3324.12 |
| College Credit Plus |
If a course is available on the secondary school campus that a student attends, the student would not be able to enroll in a comparable course on the college campus at another location or online. If the course on the high school campus exceeds maximum capacity for enrollment, the school superintendent may approve the student to attend the course on the college campus, at another location operated by the college, or online. |
R.C. § 3365.03 |
| College Credit Plus |
Changes for the provision and arrangements for the payment of textbooks begin in 2018–19.
Removes the requirement that the school district must pay for textbooks, and removes textbooks from the list of items that school districts and colleges may enter into an agreement for an alternative fee structure.
New Revised Code Section 3365.072: Requires students from public, nonpublic, or nonchartered nonpublic schools to pay for 50% of the cost of all required textbooks, and requires the student’s secondary school to pay for 50% of the cost of all required textbooks.
Requires ODE to adopt rules that define economically disadvantaged students, and provides that for students defined as such, the secondary school will pay 100% of the cost of the required textbooks.
Requires that home-instructed students participating in CCP be responsible for 100% of the costs of the required textbooks. |
R.C. § 3365.07 |
| Uncodified section |
Section 3 requires ODE to conduct a study of the results and cost-effectiveness of the College Credit Plus program and to present a report to all school districts, ESCs, the governor, the Chancellor of Higher Education, and every member of the General Assembly.
The study must include information on whether participants save money on college tuition and reduce the time to complete a degree and whether it is cost-effective for school districts. |
Section 3 |