View HTML

PDQ May 2018

Note: To print this issue, you may need to choose the “shrink to fit” option in the window.

In this issue: New CCP rules require academic progress policy • Presentation of career information to students • Revisions for development of career-technical education programs • Arming staff, school resource officers and board policy • Criminal records checks • Education program for parents of truant students • OTES and OPES and value-added data • Sample policies included with this issue

New CCP rules require academic progress policy

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

House Bill (HB) 49 revised several College Credit Plus (CCP) requirements. The bill also required the chancellor of higher education, in consultation with the superintendent of public instruction, to develop rules addressing the conditions under which an underperforming student may continue to participate in CCP and courses eligible for funding under CCP.

These rules, effective Feb. 15, are outlined in new Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) rules 3333-1-65.12 and 3333-1-65.13 and implemented beginning with the summer term of the 2018-19 academic year.

Underperforming students
To address CCP student success, Ohio Revised Code Section (RC) 3365.03, as revised by HB 49, beginning with the 2018-19 academic year, requires a student, as a condition of eligibility, to either:

• be considered “remediation-free” on one of the assessments established under RC 3345.061(F);

• score within one standard error of measurement below the remediation-free threshold on one of the assessments and either have at least a 3.0 cumulative GPA or receive a recommendation from a school counselor, principal or career-technical program adviser.

The student also must meet the college and relevant academic program’s established standards for admission, enrollment and course placement. These criteria still apply for students to be eligible to apply for and participate in CCP. As a reminder, students must apply each year to participate in CCP.

While these new academic criteria may have addressed some concerns about students being prepared for college-level courses and participating in CCP, the new rules around underperforming students further address this concern. Even if a student is eligible for participation in CCP, under the Ohio Revised Code provisions, he or she may still be determined to be an underperforming student and subject to the subsequent requirements.

OAC 3333-1-65.13 defines underperforming students and establishes parameters for placing students on probation or deeming them ineligible for continued CCP participation. An underperforming student is defined as a student who meets at least one of the following criteria:

• a cumulative GPA lower than 2.0 in the college courses taken through CCP;

• withdraws from or receives no credit for two or more courses in the same term.

An ineligible student is one who meets the definition of an underperforming student for two consecutive terms of enrollment.

A student’s secondary school must place an underperforming student on probation within CCP and promptly notify the student, his or her parent and the college in which the student is enrolled of the student’s probationary status.

Schools also must advise the student and his or her parent on the requirements for program continuation. When on CCP probation, a student can enroll in no more than one college course in any term and cannot enroll in a college course in the same subject as a college course in which the student earned a grade of D or F or for which he or she received no credit.

If a student is already registered for ineligible courses and fails to disenroll from them, the secondary school must notify the student and parent that they will be responsible for paying all tuition, fees and textbook costs for these courses, and that the student will be dismissed from the program for the next term. Students also are subject to the college’s academic probation and dismissal policies and procedures.

If a student takes a college course after being placed on CCP probation and his or her course grade raises his or her cumulative college course GPA to 2.0 or higher, the student is removed from CCP probation and may continue to participate in CCP without restriction unless he or she again meets the requirements for placement on probation. If a student on probation enrolls in a college course and the course grade does not raise his or her cumulative college course GPA to 2.0 or higher, the student’s secondary school must dismiss the student from CCP.

Each secondary school is responsible for dismissing an ineligible student from CCP and must promptly notify the student, his or her parent and the college in which the student is enrolled of the dismissal. A dismissed student cannot take any college courses through CCP and, if already registered for any college courses for the next term, he or she must request to be disenrolled from the courses. If a student fails to do so, the secondary school must notify the student and parent that they will be responsible for paying all tuition, fees and textbook costs for the courses from which the student was required to disenroll.

Summer term is only counted as a term of dismissal if the student is enrolled in one or more high school courses during the summer. Upon request, the school must review the student’s full high school and college academic record to determine his or her academic progress and decide whether to continue the student’s dismissal; place the student on CCP probation; or allow the student to participate in CCP without restriction, in accordance with the school’s CCP academic progress policy.

A student dismissed from CCP or prohibited from taking a course in which he or she previously received a D or F or for which he or she received no credit may appeal the decision to the district superintendent. The superintendent must consider any extenuating circumstances separate from academic performance that may have affected the student’s CCP status and may allow the student to participate in CCP without restriction; allow the student to take a course for which he or she previously received a D or F or for which they received no credit; allow the student to participate in CCP on probation; or maintain the student’s dismissal from the program.

The student must request the appeal within five business days after receiving notification of CCP dismissal, probation or denial of a course, and the secondary school must promptly notify the college in which the student is enrolled of the appeal. The superintendent must issue a decision within 10 business days after the appeal is made. This decision is final.

The student’s college must be notified of the decision. If the appeal is denied and the student is enrolled in a college, the college must permit the student to withdraw from all courses in which they are enrolled without penalty for the student. The student’s secondary school is not required to pay for those courses.

If the superintendent fails to make a decision within the required time, the same rule applies for student withdrawal. However, the student’s secondary school is responsible for the course costs if the decision is made after the prescribed no-fault withdrawal date.

Academic progress policy
OAC 3333-1-65.13 requires each secondary school to develop a policy defining the academic progress a student must achieve to be reinstated into CCP, either on probation or without restrictions prior to the start of the 2018 summer term. This policy must, at minimum, state that failure to make academic progress as defined in the policy will result in an extension of CCP dismissal.

The policy also must include the procedures by which a student may appeal his or her status. After one term of CCP dismissal, a student may request that the secondary school allow him or her to participate in CCP.

It is important to note the requirement for this policy to be a school-specific policy. Each secondary school must develop a policy defining this academic success, and the policy may vary by district. The Ohio Department of Higher Education (ODHE) is finalizing district guidance as you work to develop your school-specific policies. Look for this information from ODHE as you prepare to have something in place before the start of the summer 2018 term. As this is not a board policy, you have more flexibility in implementing and developing the policy prior to the deadline.

Course eligibility
In addition to addressing underperforming students, the new administrative code provisions also address courses eligible for CCP funding. These provisions are important to note as you implement CCP in the 2018-19 academic year. Under OAC 3333-1-65.12, college courses eligible for payment under CCP are grouped into two levels. Following are Level I courses:

• a transferable course, as defined in OAC;

• a course in computer science, information technology, anatomy, physiology or foreign language, including American Sign Language, that is not eligible to be a transferable course;

• a technical certificate course, as defined in OAC;

• a course included in a model pathway developed by the student’s secondary school that a student in CCP elects to pursue;

• a course designed to teach study skills and other skills for academic success to first-year college students;

• an internship course;

• another course approved by the chancellor of higher education in accordance with law.

All other courses are classified as Level II.

Students must complete 15 semester credit hours of Level I courses that may be applied toward a certificate or degree prior to taking a Level II course except as follows:

• the student has successfully completed a Level I course in a specific subject, in which case the student may take a Level II course in the same subject prior to completing the required 15 credit hours in Level I courses;

• the student may take a Level II course that has a Level I prerequisite in accordance with the college’s course placement guidelines provided the student demonstrates by an assessment or another means he or she is academically prepared for the course;

• a student may count an Advanced Placement course or International Baccalaureate Diploma course completed at the student’s secondary school toward the 15-credit-hour requirement, with evidence he or she has attained the required score sufficient to earn college credit in accordance with requirements established by the chancellor of higher education and/or the local college, when applicable.

Once a student either meets the 15-credit-hour requirement of Level I courses or is otherwise excused from this requirement as outlined above, the student may then enroll in a Level II course that may be applied toward a certificate or degree.

The following courses are specifically exempted from payment under CCP:

• an applied course involving one-on-one private instruction including, but not limited to, instruction in instrumental music, voice or art;

• a course for which fees exceed an amount established by the chancellor of higher education;

• study abroad or similar courses;

• physical education courses;

• a course graded on a pass/fail or satisfactory/unsatisfactory basis, except for an internship course or a transferable course graded on this basis for all students included in the course, including non-CCP students.

OAC 3333-1-65.12 allows for an appeal to the chancellor of higher education of the exclusion of these courses for payment by the college or university. This code section also further reiterates, in line with Ohio Revised Code provisions, that remedial or noncollege-level courses and sectarian courses are not eligible for funding under CCP and clarifies these courses are nonappealable.

Colleges participating in CCP must prominently post on their websites a list of Level I courses CCP students may enroll in. A student’s secondary school must verify the student is enrolled in an appropriate level of course upon receipt of the student’s preterm notice of admission.

If the student is not enrolled in the appropriate level of course, the secondary school must notify the student and his or her parent that the student must either withdraw from the course prior to the college’s no-fault withdrawal date or pay all tuition, fees and textbook costs for the course. Schools also must include information about eligible college courses in the required informational and counseling sessions, and a student’s academic adviser at the college must include information on the eligible courses in his or her mandatory meeting.

OAC 3333-1-65.12 also establishes an audit process by which the chancellor of higher education may audit courses under the rule to determine funding eligibility.

Policy implications
IGCH, College Credit Plus (Also LEC), and IGCH-R, College Credit Plus (Also LEC-R), have been updated to reflect the new OAC provisions related to underperforming students and eligible courses.

Make sure you have your local academic progress policy in place prior to start of the 2018 summer term and make necessary updates to your CCP materials, counseling and informational session content. Visit the ODHE website for additional guidance on implementing the new OAC requirements.

Return to top

Presentation of career information to students

by Kyle E. Lathwell, policy consultant

Ohio Revised Code Section (RC) 3313.471, as amended by House Bill 98, now prohibits boards of education from imposing any restriction on the presentation of career information to students that is not uniformly imposed on representatives of the armed forces, skilled trades, institutions of higher education, career-technical education providers, business, industry, charitable institutions and other employers.

Boards also cannot prohibit the presentation of information or recruitment of students by those representatives for employment, employment training or education on the district’s campus. Equal access is to be provided to any of the district’s employment or placement services.

Boards are required to provide the entities listed above with at least two opportunities per school year to present information in person to all students in grades nine through 12, individually or in a group setting. This requirement can be achieved by providing common-area access for the presentation of informational materials or having a scheduled educational or career fair.

To the extent permitted by law, boards may develop an application process for entities wishing to access school property for the purpose of presenting information to students. Boards also may develop standards of conduct that entities must adhere to as a condition of continuing to have access and the ability to present informational materials.

Policy implications
Policy KKA, Recruiters in the Schools, has been revised because of the new language in RC 3313.471 and is included with this PDQ issue. Some of the added language is intended to address the fact that boards may develop standards of conduct for those presenting informational materials to students.

The revised code section also has been added to the list of legal references. Boards may choose to have all applicants use a process established by administration and may customize this policy to reflect that process.

Return to top

Revisions for development of career-technical education programs

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

Ohio Revised Code Section (RC) 3313.90 requires every school district to provide students in grades seven through 12 with career-technical education adequate to prepare a student for an occupation. Boards may annually pass a resolution to not provide this education to students in grades seven and eight for a particular year.

Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3301-61-02 amplifies RC 3313.90 and has recently been revised. The rule now better reflects the requirement for every school district to provide to the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) a plan for providing career-technical education for students in grades seven through 12.

Districts are still required to send updated plans to ODE every five years to provide a current listing of career-technical workforce development programs. OAC 3301-61-07 was rescinded, and the language now appears in the revised OAC 3301-61-02. This language continues the existing requirements for submitting a career-technical planning district plan (CTPD) to ODE and any revisions thereto.

OAC 3301-61-03 outlines criteria for career-technical programs and CTPDs. Joint vocational school districts generally are CTPDs and the method through which many districts implement their career-technical education plans.

The lead district for a CTPD now must establish deadlines for receiving applications for new and continuing program applications from the districts assigned to the CTPD. These deadlines must include the dates by which the lead district will approve or disapprove applications, and the lead district must submit all approved program applications to ODE no later than March 1.

RC 3317.161 establishes requirements for approval of career-technical education programs. OAC 3301-61-03 amplifies this revised code section, and the revisions now require the lead district to include the following requirements in addition to the requirements outlined in RC 3317.161(C)(1) when approving career-technical programs:

• the program is aligned with state, regional and local economic growth priorities and demands for employment;

• it prepares students for careers that generate a sustaining wage;

• the program complies with guidelines from other state agencies as appropriate regarding coursework, licensure and instruction;

• it ensures students have access to career-technical student organizations.

Lead districts and member districts should be aware of the entire list of factors in RC 3317.161(C)(1) and OAC 3301-61-03 and consider them when proposing new or revised career-technical programs.

The requirements for career-technical advisory committees, as outlined in OAC 3301-61-03, also have been expanded and now require the committee to include ensuring the quality of the program by using ODE quality program standards.

Policy implications
IGAD, Career-Technical Education, has been updated to better reflect statutory requirements for provision of the programs and is available for download with this PDQ issue. Districts also should review local materials related to the selection of career-technical programs to determine if any updates are necessary. More information on career-technical education is available here.

Return to top

Arming staff, school resource officers and board policy

by Kyle E. Lathwell, policy consultant

Due to recent events, many school boards around the state are considering allowing certain district employees to carry firearms while on district property as a part of the district’s overall safety plan. Many districts also want to add one or more school resource officers (SROs) to ensure the safety of students and staff. OSBA has received many questions about the steps needed to implement these changes and whether there are board policy implications.

Arming staff
While there are many issues to consider when implementing such a program, the implications for board policy are simple. State law generally does not permit the possession of a firearm — concealed or in plain view — on school property. However, school boards may authorize certain staff members to possess firearms if the individual possesses a carrying a concealed weapon license issued through the state.

To authorize certain qualified staff members to carry firearms, the board must take action. State law currently requires an affirmative action by the board, which can be through a resolution. However, the law does not require a board policy.

Because board policies are public records, the details of a program to arm staff members do not belong in board policy. Detailed information, including the names of those who are authorized to carry, is better suited for the district’s overall emergency management plan. More importantly, the district’s comprehensive emergency management plan is not a public record and is deemed confidential by law. Therefore, the details of your program are protected from release to the general public.

School resource officers
While many districts around the state already have SROs in their buildings, others are looking to add them as a part of their overall effort to ensure the safety of students and staff. We have received questions about SROs and if the decision to hire them needs to be reflected in board policy.

While it is best practice for boards of education to authorize SROs through a resolution, state law does not require school boards to include the decision in board policy. Most often, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the school district and law enforcement agency is executed to establish the relationship. The MOU can be used to specify the SRO’s roles, responsibilities and expectations. The law currently does not prescribe SRO training requirements, however, districts could use the MOU to establish certain training requirements as part of the arrangement.

Policy implications
There are no board policy implications about arming staff or SROs. However, boards should consider involving legal counsel when implementing either of these programs. For more information and resources on school safety, visit OSBA’s school safety webpage.

Return to top

Criminal records checks

by Kyle E. Lathwell, policy consultant

Ohio Revised Code Section (RC) 3319.39 requires school districts to obtain criminal records checks from the Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) for all candidates for employment and for some contractors and volunteers. The district cannot hire, and must release from conditional employment, any person who does not pass the criminal records check.

Policy GBQ, Criminal Records Check, is a required policy, and during our standard review of existing policies, we determined that some revisions to the policy are in order. Some of the requirements currently found in the policy are drawn from the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and apply to employers who are using “consumer reports” in connection with hiring. A consumer report is a defined as a written, oral or other communication of information provided by a “consumer reporting agency” that bears on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics or mode of living used for employment purposes.

The BCI criminal records check, which may include information from the FBI, as required by state law, is a communication bearing on a person’s character, general reputation, personal characteristics or mode of living used as a factor in establishing a person’s eligibility for employment. However, neither BCI nor FBI fall within the definition of a consumer reporting agency.

Since BCI would not be considered a consumer reporting agency for the purposes of FCRA, the background checks provided to districts by BCI do not fall within the definition of a consumer report. Therefore, the requirements in FCRA do not apply to school districts that use BCI reports when making hiring decisions.

Policy implications
GBQ, Criminal Records Check has been updated to remove the language related to FCRA requirements and also revised to further strengthen the policy. References to FCRA requirements also have been removed from GCPD, Suspension and Termination of Professional Staff Members. Both policies are available for download with this PDQ issue.

In addition, we have removed the FCRA legal reference from the following policies:

• GCD, Professional Staff Hiring;

• GCE, Part-Time and Substitute Professional Staff Employment;

• GDC, Support Staff Recruiting;

• GDE, Part-Time, Temporary and Substitute Support Staff Employment;

• GDI, Support Staff Assignments and Transfers;

• GDPD, Suspension, Demotion and Termination of Support Staff Members;

• LEA, Student Teaching and Internships.

More information on criminal background checks can be found in an OSBA Criminal Records fact sheet.

Return to top

Education program for parents of truant students

by Kyle E. Lathwell, policy consultant

Truancy is a continuing problem in schools throughout the state, and a variety of approaches have been taken to encourage student attendance and urge parents to compel their children to attend. One step boards can take is developing an education program for the parents of truant students.

Under Ohio Revised Code Section (RC) 3321.19, when a board determines a student in its district has been truant and the parent, guardian or other person having care of the child has failed to cause the student’s attendance at school, the board may require the parent to attend an educational program established in rules adopted by the State Board of Education. The statute also states that no parent, guardian or other person having care of a child shall fail without good cause to attend this program if they have been served notice pursuant to the statute.

The administrative rule associated with RC 3321.19 is Ohio Administrative Code 3301-47-01. Effective Feb. 15, the original rule was rescinded and replaced with a revised rule. The rule, consistent with statute, establishes a program for parents of truant students to encourage attendance. Most of the changes either removed previously defined terms or eliminated restating requirements already noted in the statute.

While boards are not required to establish an education program, if they choose to do so, the program must address the following:

• compulsory school laws, including RC 3321.01, 3321.02, 3321.03, and 3321.04;

• an overview of school opportunities and options, including positive approaches for addressing the identified social, emotional and academic needs of the student;

• impacts of frequent absences on college and workforce readiness;

• other topics determined necessary by the district in collaboration with community partners.

If a program is adopted, it must be reviewed by the board at least every five years. Also, for the sole purposes of developing the education program, the board still must establish an education program committee. The committee members may include, but are not limited to, a parent, board member, member of the juvenile judicial system, guidance counselor, school psychologist, attendance officer, teacher, principal or superintendent.

Consistent with the old rule, when determining whether a parent of a student who is habitually truant should be referred to an education program, consideration must be given to the student’s academic record, discipline record and parent’s cooperation.

Policy implications
Policy JEDA, Truancy, already addresses education programs for the parents of truant students and none of the rule changes prompt a change to the policy itself. However, the legal references have been updated, and the policy has been included with this PDQ issue.

Return to top

OTES and OPES and value-added data

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

In 2015, House Bill (HB) 64 provided safe harbor for teachers and administrators subject to the value-added measures for state assessments administered in the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years and required to be evaluated under the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) or Ohio Principal Evaluation System (OPES).

As you finalize your evaluations for this academic year, note the value-added data available for teachers and administrators does not include data from the excluded years. As a result, this measure should be used as a component of the student growth measure for teachers and administrators subject to value added.

The Ohio Department of Education’s 10 things you need to know about educator evaluation 2017-2018, Business rules for student growth measures and Educator evaluation and teacher value added documents address this issue. Review these documents for more information.

Policy implications
Policies AFC-1 (also GCN-1), Evaluation of Professional Staff (Ohio Teacher Evaluation System), and AFC-2 (also GCN-2), Evaluation of Professional Staff (Administrators both Professional and Support), have been updated to reflect the end of the HB 64 safe harbor provisions and are available for download with this PDQ issue.

When reviewing the changes to OSBA’s model teacher evaluation policies, remember that your locally adopted policies may vary greatly from the OSBA model. Please compare these changes closely with locally adopted policies and collective bargaining agreements prior to adopting any of the recommended changes.

Return to top