View HTML

PDQ August 2018

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

In this issue: Crowdfunding and schools • New requirements for district credit cards • Uniform guidance and federal procurement policies • House Bill 318: Positive behavioral interventions and supports and suspensions and expulsions • House Bill 318: School resource officers • Senate Bill 216: The Ohio Public School Deregulation Act and what it means for you • House Bill 438 revises options for ESC boards • Change in athletic transfer bylaws • Open enrollment policies • Other provisions and changes impacting school districts • Sample policies included with this issue

Please note: While all the provisions discussed in these articles have been signed by the governor, not all provisions are yet effective. Many are not effective until 90 days after the signature date. As a result, many of the links to applicable revised code sections may not yet link to the updated revised code language.

Crowdfunding and schools

by Kyle E. Lathwell, policy consultant

Crowdfunding is a way to fund a cause by seeking donations, monetary or otherwise, from the public via the internet. Many teachers have turned to crowdfunding to supplement and enhance existing classroom resources.

While crowdfunding has proven to be a valuable mechanism for educators to raise funds, it also poses some risks that cannot be overlooked or ignored. As such, the Ohio Auditor of State’s Office recently issued a crowdfunding special report for school districts.

The report, in part, stems from a recent survey conducted by the auditor’s office, which revealed that while an increasing number of districts are using crowdfunding as a tool to solicit donations of money and supplies, many do not have policies governing the practice.

The report includes guidance that strongly encourages districts to adopt a policy that either bans crowdfunding altogether or sets parameters for its use to ensure there is no violation of state or federal law; financial controls and accounting are in place; and the reputation of the district is not negatively impacted.

Potential risks
Student privacy
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) restrict districts from disclosing information that could identify a student without the consent of the parents or student. Ohio Revised Code (RC) 3319.321 contains similar state-level restrictions.

Crowdfunding campaigns often use photos and narratives that could provide enough information to make it possible to identify a student in violation of law. According to the auditor’s survey, many districts that have a policy on crowdfunding do not address the inclusion of photos in these campaigns. In fact, many indicated that they do not specifically address student privacy protections at all.

Financial controls and accounting
Several provisions of state law govern the receipt and disposition of money collected on behalf of a public entity. RC 3313.51 establishes that the treasurer of the board of education is the treasurer of all school funds. Monies received by the treasurer are to be deposited in a timely manner and consistent with board directives.

Many crowdfunding campaigns have the money and/or donations sent directly to the teacher organizing the campaign. This enables the possibility of donations being diverted for personal gain and also makes it difficult for the district to account for the funds.

Some crowdfunding sites address this issue by sending donations directly to the district, but others send donations directly to the teacher. Districts need to ensure donations are being used for the purposes set forth in the crowdfunding campaign. This is hard to control if the donation does not come directly to the district. To avoid these issues, districts should address fiscal controls and accounting in policy.

The auditor’s survey revealed that many districts with crowdfunding polices allow donations to go directly to the teacher. Others do not require the documentation of donations in the district’s books or inventory. These practices may lead to issues for the district treasurer or potential theft or misuse and should be clearly addressed in policy.

Reputational risk
Teachers often will use the district name, school name, school logo or other means that clearly identifies the district as being a part of their crowdfunding campaign. The school district has a vested interest in ensuring it is being represented in a favorable light, further reason for districts to have a policy requiring all district-related crowdfunding campaigns to be reviewed and approved by a designated school administrator.

Policy recommendations and best practices
The auditor’s report made clear that all districts should have a crowdfunding policy, and that it should include the following guidelines and best practices:

Require that all crowdfunding campaigns be reviewed and approved by a designated school administrator.
Direct the designated administrator to ensure that the proposed crowdfunding campaign does not violate any federal or state law, including those governing the confidentiality of student information, and that the campaign seeks donations that comport with the district’s education philosophy, needs and technical infrastructure.
Designate which crowdfunding services can be used by teachers. These should be services that send donations directly to the school — not the teacher — to ensure donations are not diverted or misused. The district also should determine if participation with a given site obligates the district to assume any responsibility to file government-required reports of charitable activities.
Require that donations be used for the stated purpose.
Mandate that no donations will be accepted without school board approval.
Establish that all donations are the property of the district, to be entered promptly into the district property inventory or deposited in district bank accounts so that they are subject to normal financial oversight and auditing.

Policy implications
To help districts comply with the new auditor’s guidance, we have provided a new sample board policy: GBIA, Crowdfunding (also IGDFA). It is intended to establish the board’s expectations and standards for crowdfunding campaigns related to the district and provides options indicating whether the district does or does not allow for crowdfunding. We also have updated several other policies to address crowdfunding:

• GBI, Staff Gifts and Solicitations;

• IGDF, Student Fundraising Activities;

• KH, Public Gifts to the District (cross reference only);

• KI, Public Solicitations in the Schools (cross reference only).

Return to top

New requirements for district credit cards

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

House Bill (HB) 312, effective Nov. 2, outlines new provisions for district credit cards. The requirements are outlined in newly enacted Ohio Revised Code (RC) 3313.311. The bill also specifically prohibits political subdivisions from holding debit card accounts.

Credit card accounts are defined as any bank-issued credit card account, store-issued credit card account, financial institution credit card account, affinity credit card account or any other card account allowing the holder to purchase goods or services on credit or transact with the account and any debit or gift card account related to the receipt of grant moneys.

The definition specifically does not include procurement card accounts, gasoline or telephone credit card accounts or any other card account where merchant category codes are in place as a system of control for using the card account.

Boards holding credit cards on the bill’s effective date must adopt policies for these cards meeting statutory requirements no later than three months after the bill’s effective date. Boards not currently holding credit card accounts must adopt a written policy meeting the requirements prior to holding a credit card account.

The board policy must include:

the officers or positions authorized to use credit card accounts;
the types of expenses for which a credit card account may be used;
the procedure for acquisition, use and management of credit card accounts and presentation instruments related to the account, including cards and checks;
procedures for submitting itemized receipts to the treasurer or chief fiscal officer or his or her designee;
procedures for credit card issuance, reissuance, cancellation and the process for reporting lost or stolen credit cards;
the credit account’s maximum credit limit or limits;
actions or omissions by an officer or employee that qualifies as credit card misuse.

The district name must appear on each presentation instruction related to the account, including cards and checks. Using a district credit card for expenses beyond those authorized by the policy constitutes misuse of the account and any employee or officer of a school district who knowingly misuses the card violates RC 2913.21.

If the treasurer retains general possession and control of the account and presentation instruments, he or she may use a system to sign out credit cards to users authorized by the board policy. If the user does not provide itemized receipts in accordance with the policy, he or she may be required to reimburse the amount in accordance with state law or board policy.

If the treasurer does not retain general possession and control of the account and presentation instruments, the board must appoint a compliance officer. This board-appointed compliance officer cannot use a credit card account unless he or she also is the superintendent. If the superintendent is the compliance officer and he or she has been granted authority to use the card, the treasurer or his or her designee must review the credit card account transaction detail each month and sign an attestation stating he or she has fulfilled this responsibility.

The compliance officer cannot authorize an employee or officer to use a credit card account. The treasurer cannot be appointed as the compliance officer. The compliance officer, if applicable, must review at least once every six months the number of issued cards and accounts; the number of issued active cards and accounts; the cards’ and accounts’ expiration dates; and the cards’ and accounts’ credit limits.

The treasurer or his or her designee must annually file a report with the board detailing all the rewards received based on using the credit card account.

Policy implications
Policy DJH, Credit Cards, has been updated to reflect the new statutory requirements. This policy must be locally customized prior to adoption. Regulation DJH-R, Credit Cards, has been removed and details incorporated into the updated policy.

If you already have credit card accounts, you must adopt these updated policies within three months of the bill’s effective date. For districts without current accounts, make sure you adopt the policy prior to establishing a credit card account. Also, make sure employees authorized to use the cards are aware of the requirements for use and the limitations on what these cards may be used for.

Policy DJB, Petty Cash Accounts, also has been updated to reflect the prohibition on using debit cards.

Return to top

Uniform guidance and federal procurement policies

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

Federal funds that districts receive must be managed in accordance with the federal uniform grant guidance audit requirements. The rules are outlined in 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 200 and emphasize the need for strong financial management systems and other internal controls aimed at controlling fraud, waste and abuse.

Internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government issued by the U.S. comptroller general or the Internal Control Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

Written procedures and internal controls are core components of the uniform guidance, and we have reviewed various components of the guidance in previous PDQ issues. One of the significant areas requiring written procedures is procurement.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provided a grace period for entities to implement these procurement requirements. However, this grace period expired, and the new standards must be followed starting with the current July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019, fiscal year. Contracts entered into prior to July 1 do not have to meet these requirements and will be audited in accordance with your previous documented policies and procedures.

All purchases of property and services using federal funds on or after July 1, 2018, must be conducted in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, the uniform guidance requirements and the district’s written policies and procedures. It is important to realize that any service or product purchased using federal funds is subject to these requirements.

An example that many districts may not previously have thought of is services the district may contract for with an ESC for speech or occupational therapy services or something similar. When entering contracts, districts must evaluate which procurement method and subsequent requirements must be followed.

In all methods of procurement through federal funds, the district must avoid situations that unnecessarily restrict competition and avoid acquisition of unnecessary or duplicative items. Individuals or organizations that develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work and/or invitations for bids, requests for proposals or initiations to negotiate must be excluded from competing for such purchases.

Each employee, board member or agent of the district who is engaged in the selection, awarding or administration of a contract supported by a federal grant or award and has a potential conflict of interest must disclose the conflict in writing to a designated individual at the district, such as the superintendent or treasurer.

This individual must, in turn, disclose in writing any potential conflict of interest to the federal awarding agency. For purposes of this provision, a conflict of interest would arise when a covered individual, any member of his or her immediate family or an organization that employs or is about to employ any of these parties has a financial or other interest in the contract or receives a tangible personal benefit from a firm considered for the contract.

An individual who is required to disclose a conflict of interest cannot participate in the selection, awarding or administration of a contract supported by a federal grant or award. Individuals also cannot solicit or accept any gratuities, favors or items from a contractor or party to subcontract for a federal grant or award. The district must disclose in writing, in a timely manner to the federal awarding agency, all violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery or gratuities potentially affecting any federal award. All such violations must be promptly addressed.

Contracts may only be awarded to responsible contractors possessing the ability to perform successfully under a proposed procurement’s terms and conditions. Consideration should be given to matters such as contractor integrity, compliance with public policy, record of past performance and financial and technical resources. A contract cannot be awarded to a contractor who is suspended or debarred from eligibility for participation in federal assistance programs or activities.

Purchasing records must be sufficiently maintained to detail the history of all procurements and include at minimum: rationale for the method of procurement; selection of contract type and contractor selection or rejection; the basis for contract price; and verification the contractor is not suspended or debarred.

Federal procurement is broken down into five methods:

Micro-purchases

Purchases of $10,000 or less. The regulations allow for this amount to change, and this amount was recently increased from $3,500 to $10,000 through OMB memo M-18-18. Districts must state the new threshold in policy to use the new amount.
No need to solicit competition for these purchases. However, the district must consider the cost to be reasonable.
To the extent practicable, the district must distribute these purchases equitably among qualified suppliers.

Small purchases

Purchases between $10,000 and $250,000, recently increased through OMB memo M-18-18.
Relatively simple process that is excluded from any requirements for cost or price analysis.
Districts must obtain an adequate number of price or rate quotations. The uniform guidance does not specifically define this number. However, district written policies need to define what the district considers an adequate number of quotes and the methods for obtaining the price quotations. These methods may include, but not be limited to, being obtained in writing, orally, via a price list on a website or other methods deemed appropriate by the district.

Sealed bid

Purchases over $250,000. Preferred method for construction projects.
Firm fixed-price contract.
Bids are publicly solicited from an adequate number of known suppliers.
Must have two or more responsible bidders and be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

Competitive proposals

Purchases over $250,000. Used when sealed bids are not appropriate, such as contract services.
May be fixed-price or cost-reimbursement contracts.
A request for proposals must be publicized. The uniform guidance does not define how this must occur. Districts should determine at the local level what method to use and may consider using the same method used for other competitive bidding and proposals.
More than one source is expected to make an offer.
Districts need to establish written procedures for technical evaluation of the proposals, and the contract must be awarded to the most advantageous offer, with price and other factors considered. Districts may already be using score sheets to review proposals and could apply a similar process to review these proposals. Whatever option districts choose to use should be documented in written procedures. Price must be a factor in determining which proposal to accept. However, if the proposal is for architectural or engineering services, price cannot be a factor.

Noncompetitive/sole-source proposals

Only appropriate when the following criteria are met:
- Service or product is only available from a single source.
- Public exigency or emergency exists.
- The federal awarding (pass through) agency authorizes the use of this procurement method.
- There is inadequate competition (requires “justification for other than free and open competition”).

When determining which procurement method to use, districts should look at the aggregate contract price similar to when determining state law bidding requirement thresholds. One recommendation to determine this is to look back at the past three years’ worth of expenditures for the purchased goods or services to determine what the aggregate amount was in a fiscal year, and then use that to estimate what the cost will be for the current fiscal year. Districts may have varying processes already in place. Policies and procedures should document how you determine what the total cost will be and, therefore, how you determine which procurement method to use.

Policy implications
Policies DECA, Administration of Federal Grant Funds; DJ, Purchasing; DJC, Bidding Requirements; DJF, Purchasing Procedures; and DJF-R, Purchasing Procedures, all have been updated to reflect the federal requirements. When updating these policies, some additional updates were integrated to better reflect specific state law requirements. We also made revisions to further clarify your overall uniform guidance obligations outside of procurement procedures.

These policies, as provided, do not include everything the auditors will be looking for regarding written procedures, as local customization is required. Districts need to document in writing their local procedures, which often vary based on the district’s size and structure or practice followed.

There are various areas highlighted within the included sample policies encouraging you to include district-specific details. If you already have these details in place in another manner, determine whether you will keep them in both places and, if so, what procedures you will use to make sure they remain consistent.

Return to top

House Bill 318: Positive behavioral interventions and supports and suspensions and expulsions

by Kyle E. Lathwell, policy consultant

House Bill (HB) 318, effective Nov. 2, clarifies the objectives and content of the positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) framework each school currently is required to implement. The new and amended language promotes using the PBIS framework as an alternative to suspending or expelling younger students by phasing in limitations on the suspension and expulsion of those students. The bill also addresses the process for emergency removal of students, with specific provisions dedicated solely to the younger student. Additionally, the bill includes an appropriation for PBIS implementation grants.

PBIS
Under amended Ohio Revised Code (RC) 3319.46, the State Board of Education must amend or update Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3301-35-15 to reflect the requirements of RC 3319.46 within 90 days of the bill’s effective date. The current rule requires each school district to adopt PBIS and encourages, but does not require, PBIS training.

New PBIS framework
Under RC 3319.46, each school board must implement a PBIS framework on a systemwide basis that is developed and implemented for the purpose of improving academic and social outcomes as well as increasing learning for all students. The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) will oversee each district’s and school’s compliance with any new or existing requirements. Each district’s PBIS framework may focus on the following:

comprehensive schoolwide data systems that enable monitoring of academic progress, behavioral incidents, attendance and other critical indicators across classrooms;
schoolwide investment in evidence-based curricula and effective instructional strategies matched to students’ needs and data to support teachers’ academic instruction;
an expectation by school administrators that classroom practices be linked to and aligned with the schoolwide system;
improving staff climate and culture regarding the role of discipline in the classroom, established through the use of positive and proactive communication and staff recognition.

In addition, the bill specifies that each school district’s policy for zero tolerance, which is required under continuing law, must comply with the PBIS provisions.

Training requirements
Newly enacted RC 3319.237 includes PBIS training requirements impacting prospective teachers, existing teachers and administrators. The section requires each teacher preparation program to include a semester course or equivalent for all students pursuing a license to teach in any of grades pre-K to five. The training must include instruction on all of the following:

PBIS and social-emotional development;
classroom systems for establishing the foundation for positive behavior, such as supervision, acknowledgment, prompts and precorrection;
classroom systems for responding to unwanted behavior, including error correction and other strategies;
classroom data collection systems;
effective instructional strategies and how to implement them with fidelity;
matching curriculum to student needs and data;
the impact of trauma, toxic stress and other environmental variables on learning behavior.

As a component of the schoolwide implementation of a PBIS framework, and within three years of the bill's effective date, each district must provide professional development or continuing education in PBIS to the following:

teachers in buildings that serve students in any of grades pre-K through three who completed a teacher preparation program prior to the effective date;
administrators who serve students in any of grades pre-K through three who have not already completed a course of instruction, professional development or continuing education in PBIS.

Each district’s local professional development committee is charged with monitoring compliance with this training requirement and establishing model professional development courses that assist in compliance.

Also, ODE is to include on a school district’s or building’s state report card, without an assigned letter grade, an answer of yes or no to address whether the district or building has implemented a PBIS framework complying with HB 318 requirements. This reporting will be part of the consolidated school mandate report outlined in Senate Bill 216 and addressed elsewhere in this PDQ issue.

Suspension and expulsion
General suspension and expulsion provisions
Current law allows for the suspension of any student from school for up to 10 days for minor matters and expulsion for up to 80 days for significant violations of student conduct. The law also allows for the adoption of a resolution expelling a student from school for a year for the following serious offenses:

bringing a firearm or knife capable of causing serious bodily injury to school or onto property owned by the board;
possessing a firearm or knife capable of causing serious bodily injury at school;
causing serious physical harm to a person or property;
making a bomb threat.

HB 318 clarified that for purposes of these provisions a knife must be one capable of causing serious bodily injury. Ohio Revised Code does not contain a definition of knife, however boards are required to define this within policy. When drafting this definition and implementing these provisions, districts should ensure that the definition of knife for purposes of suspension or expulsion reflects this update.

Make-up work and in-school suspensions
HB 318 requires district boards to permit students to complete any classroom assignments missed due to both in-school and out-of-school suspensions. This previously was permissive. It also makes clear that in-school suspensions are to be served in a “supervised learning environment.” The use of in-school suspensions is otherwise not affected by HB 318.

Treasurer notification
The district superintendent or school principal are required to notify the treasurer within one school day of an expulsion but are no longer required to do so for suspensions.

New provisions related to pre-K through three students
Under amended RC 3313.668, no district or school is permitted to issue an out-of-school suspension or expulsion to a student in grades pre-K through three unless the behavior rises to the level of one of the serious offenses noted above. An out-of-school suspension also may be issued when necessary to protect the student’s immediate health and safety, fellow classmates, classroom staff and teachers, or other school employees. These students are afforded the same notice and hearing, procedural and educational opportunities as outlined in RC 3313.66.

HB 318 now requires principals to consult with a mental health professional under contract with the district or school whenever possible, prior to suspending or expelling a student in grades pre-K through three. If the events giving rise to the discipline indicate a need for additional mental health services, the principal or mental health professional must, without financial burden to the district or school, assist the student’s parent or guardian with locating a provider or obtaining those services. This and all other provisions do not limit a districts’ responsibilities to provide the special education and support services required by law.

It is recognized that out-of-school suspensions are a commonly used classroom/behavior management tool, and that phasing out unnecessary suspensions will take time. During the transition period, school districts are encouraged to gain knowledge and experience related to PBIS and how it can improve social, emotional and academic development for younger students.

To facilitate a smooth shift from out-of-school suspensions to an effective PBIS framework and to allow for appropriate staff training opportunities, the General Assembly has established a gradual phase-in.

Under HB 318, each district is required to submit any reports required by ODE or the General Assembly with respect to the implementation of a PBIS framework or suspension and expulsion of students in grades pre-K through three. For each of the school years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, each district must report to ODE the number of out-of-school suspensions and expulsions issued to students in grades pre-K through three categorized by the following offenses:

Type 1 — A serious offense for which suspension or expulsion is required or authorized by law.
Type 2 — An offense not classified as a Type 1 serious offense, but for which the school determined suspension or expulsion was necessary to protect the immediate health and safety of the student, the student’s classmates or the staff and teachers.
Type 3 — Any other offense not described above.

Using the numbers reported for the 2018-19 school year as a baseline, each district must reduce the number of Type 3 suspensions and expulsions, according to the following schedule, to be in compliance with the revised law:

2017-18 and 2018-19: 0% reduction in Type 3 suspensions and expulsions.
2019-20: 25% reduction in Type 3 suspensions and expulsions.
2020-21: 50% reduction in Type 3 suspensions and expulsions.
2021-22: 100% reduction in Type 3 suspensions and expulsions.

For the 2021-22 school year and going forward, all suspensions and expulsions for students in any of grades pre-K through three can only be for Type 1 or Type 2 offenses. Type 3 offenses should be at zero. Reporting after the 2021-22 school year will only be required if ODE determines that continued reporting of the information is needed to effectively carry out the requirements of HB 318.

Emergency removal provisions
RC 3313.66 outlines procedures for the emergency removal by the superintendent or principal of a student whose presence poses a “continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disrupting the academic process taking place within a classroom or elsewhere on the school premises.” This may be done without meeting the normally required notice and hearing requirements but requires written notice of the reasons for removal as soon as practicable. Under the revised provisions, a post-removal hearing must be held on the next school day instead of within three school days.

Pursuant to amended RC 3313.66, a student in grades pre-K through three may be removed under the circumstances described above but only for the remainder of the school day. The student must be permitted to return to curricular and extracurricular activities on the following school day. If the student is returned the following day, pursuant to this provision, then the school is not obligated to meet the written notice and post-removal hearing requirements.

The district may not initiate a suspension or expulsion proceeding against a student in grades pre-K through three who was removed under these provisions unless the student has committed a serious offense or it is necessary to protect the immediate health and safety of the student, the student’s classmates, or staff or teachers.

School climate grants
HB 318 appropriates $2 million in fiscal year 2019 to implement PBIS frameworks, evidence or research-based social and emotional learning initiatives, or both, in eligible school buildings. The superintendent of public instruction will administer and award the grants based on an order of priority provided for in the bill.

Policy implications
The following policies have been updated in light of the HB 318 changes and are available for download with this PDQ issue:

• IGD, Cocurricular and Extracurricular Activities (cross reference only);

• JFC, Student Conduct (Zero Tolerance) (cross reference and notes only);

• JFCJ, Weapons in the Schools;

• JG, Student Discipline (notes only);

• JGD, Student Suspension;

• JGDA, Emergency Removal of a Student;

• JGE, Student Expulsion;

• JP, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.

Return to top

House Bill 318: School resource officers

by Kyle E. Lathwell, policy consultant

School resource officers — qualifications and training
Using school resource officers (SROs) to bolster school safety around the state is not new. However, prior to House Bill (HB) 318, effective Nov. 2, there were no specific legal requirements about using SROs or their qualifications. HB 318, through Ohio Revised Code (RC) 3313.951, establishes specific qualifications and training requirements for SROs, among other things.

An SRO is any peace officer who is appointed through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between a law enforcement agency and a school district to provide services to the district. Any SRO providing services to a district on or after the bill’s effective date must have completed a basic training program approved by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission and must complete at least 40 hours of SRO training within one year after appointment to the position. The training must be provided by one of the following: the National Association of School Resource Officers, Ohio School Resource Officers Association or a peace officer certified to instruct per the statute. SROs who were in their position prior to the bill’s effective date are exempt from the training requirements.

The certified training program provided by these entities must include instruction on the skills, tactics and strategies needed to address the following:

school campuses;
school building security needs and characteristics;
the nuances of law enforcement functions conducted within a school environment, including:
- understanding the psychological and physiological characteristics consistent with the ages of the students;
- understanding the appropriate role of the SRO regarding discipline and reducing the number of referrals to juvenile court;
- understanding the use of developmentally appropriate interview, interrogation, de-escalation and behavior management strategies.
the mechanics of being a positive role model for youth, including appropriate communication techniques that enhance interactions between SROs and students;
providing assistance on topics such as classroom management tools to provide law-related education to students and methods for managing the behaviors sometimes associated with students who have special needs;
the mechanics of the laws on compulsory attendance;
identifying the trends in drug use, eliminating the instance of drug use and encouraging a drug-free environment in schools.

If a district wishes to use an SRO, the district and relevant law enforcement agency must first enter into an MOU that sets forth the purpose of the SRO program and the roles and expectations between the parties. If an SRO already serves a district on the statute’s effective date, then the district and law enforcement agency must enter into an MOU within a year of the effective date. Each MOU must address the following:

a clearly defined set of SRO program goals;
background requirements or expertise for employing law enforcement in the school setting, including understanding of child and adolescent development;
professional development, including training requirements that focus on age-appropriate practices for conflict resolution and developmentally informed de-escalation and crisis intervention methods;
clearly defined roles, responsibilities and expectations of the involved parties, including SROs, law enforcement, school administrators, staff and teachers;
a protocol for how suspected criminal activity versus school discipline is to be handled;
the requirement for coordinated crisis planning and updating of crisis plans;
any other discretionary items determined by the parties.

An SRO meeting the described requirements may carry out any responsibilities outlined in the MOU or contract with a district, such as providing a safe learning environment, providing resources to school staff, fostering positive relationships or developing problem-solving strategies.

Further, the bill specifically permits SROs to help districts with the adoption, implementation and amendment of their comprehensive emergency management plans. The bill directs the SRO to consult with local law enforcement and first responders when assisting with the plan.

The bill makes clear that the district or school administrator maintains the final decision-making authority about all school discipline matters. Districts, through school administrators, also may give students an opportunity to provide input during the MOU’s drafting process.

School safety training grants
The bill appropriates $12 million in fiscal year 2019 for the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, in consultation with the superintendent of public instruction and the director of the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, to make grants available to public and chartered nonpublic schools for school safety and school climate programs and training. The grants may be used for, but are not limited to, the following:

the support of SRO certification training;
any type of active shooter and school safety training;
all grade-level type educational resources;
training to identify and help students with mental health issues;
any other training related to school safety.

The bill requires participating schools and county boards to work with or contract with the county sheriff’s office or a local department to develop these programs and training.

Policy implications
The inclusion of new standards and qualifications for SROs within the law does not prompt any significant policy changes within OSBA’s model policies. Policy EBC, Emergency Management and Safety Plans, is provided for informational purposes and due to an additional legal reference. Districts that include more detail in policy on safety matters will want to review locally adopted policies to ensure that no updates are needed. Other districts will want to consider including the details of their SRO program in their emergency management plan.

While this development does not prompt significant policy changes, it is important to be deliberate and thoughtful about the process of bringing the services of an SRO to your district. Engage the community and get its feedback. Work closely with legal counsel to ensure that you have a well-written and thorough MOU. Also, consider reaching out to other districts that already are using SROs and determine what is working effectively for them and what is not.

The Ohio School Resource Officers Association is a good resource for learning more about SROs, in general, and for staff and SRO training opportunities.

Return to top

Senate Bill 216: The Ohio Public School Deregulation Act and what it means for you

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

Senate Bill (SB) 216, effective Nov. 2, revises several key school district requirements, including teacher licensure, nonteaching employee contracts, compliance reporting, administration of assessments, reporting of five-year forecasts and teacher evaluation.

Teacher licensure
References throughout Ohio Revised Code to “highly qualified teachers” have been replaced with “properly certified or licensed teachers.” The term highly qualified teachers previously was defined in the No Child Left Behind Act, and the terminology and specific requirements at the federal level were removed with implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act.

Effective July 1, 2019, no city, exempted village, local, joint vocational or cooperative education school district can employ any classroom teacher to provide instruction in a core subject area (reading and English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, foreign language and fine arts) to any student unless such teacher is a properly certified or licensed teacher. Nor can they employ any paraprofessional to provide academic support in a core subject area to any student unless such paraprofessional is a properly certified paraprofessional.

Ohio Revised Code (RC) 3319.074 defines a properly certified or licensed teacher as a classroom teacher who has successfully completed all requirements for certification or licensure under RC 3319, applicable to the subject areas and grade levels in which the teacher provides instruction and the students to whom the teacher provides the instruction. A “properly certified paraprofessional” means a paraprofessional who holds an educational aide permit issued under RC 3319.088 and satisfies at least one of the following conditions:

has a designation of “ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) qualified” on the educational aide permit;
has successfully completed at least two years of coursework at an accredited institution of higher education;
holds an associate degree or higher from an accredited institution of higher education;
meets a rigorous standard of quality as demonstrated by attaining a qualifying score on an academic assessment specified by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE).

At the start of each school year, each school district must notify the parent or guardian of each student enrolled in the district that he or she may request information on the professional qualifications of each classroom teacher who provides instruction to the student. The district must provide the information on each applicable teacher in a timely manner to any parent or guardian who requests it and must include at least the following:

whether the teacher has satisfied all requirements for certification or licensure applicable to the subject areas and grade levels in which the teacher provides instruction and the students to whom the teacher provides the instruction;
whether the teacher provides instruction under a waiver of any such requirements;
whether a paraprofessional provides any services to the student and, if so, the qualifications of the paraprofessional.

RC 3319.22 outlines requirements for what types of educator licenses are to be issued by the State Board of Education. Under the revised provisions, licenses issued on or after the bill’s effective date must specify whether the educator is licensed to teach grades pre-K through four, five through nine or nine through 12.

This requirement does not apply to any person holding a license under RC 3319.22 prior to the effective date. The grade band specifications also do not apply to the following subject area licenses: computer information science; bilingual education; dance, drama or theater; world language; health; library or media; music; physical education; teacher of English to speakers of other languages; career-technical education; visual arts; intervention specialists, including gifted intervention specialists; or to any other license that does not align to the grade band specifications. The bill still provides options for supplemental teaching licenses and the amended provisions are outlined in RC 3319.361.

RC 3319.226 adds new requirements for State Board issuance of substitute teacher licenses, effective July 1, 2019. The State Board must adopt rules establishing standards and requirements for obtaining and renewing a substitute license. The rules must require an applicant to hold a postsecondary degree, but not in any specified subject area, and allow the holder to work:

for an unlimited number of school days if the license holder has a postsecondary degree in either education or a subject area directly related to the subject of the class the license holder will teach;
for one full semester, subject to the approval of the employing school district board of education, if the license holder has a postsecondary degree in a subject area that is not directly related to the subject of the class that the license holder will teach.

The district superintendent may request that the board approve one or more additional subsequent semester-long periods of teaching for the license holder.

Any license issued or renewed under former requirements and still in force on the bill’s effective date remains in force for the remainder of the term for which it was issued or renewed. Upon the expiration of that term, the holder of that license is subject to the new requirements.

Policy implications
The following policies have been updated to reflect the terminology change to properly licensed or certified: GA, Personnel Policy Goals; GCB-1, Professional Staff Contracts and Compensation Plans (Teachers); GCB-2, Professional Staff Contracts and Compensation Plans (Administrators); and GCD, Professional Staff Hiring.

When reviewing the updated version of GCB-1, Professional Staff Contracts and Compensation Plans (Teachers), compare it closely to your local policy and negotiated agreement as some of the language on types of contracts may vary from what is in your negotiated agreement. Districts also may choose to make this policy more general by removing the specific details on types of contracts and instead refer to the negotiated agreement for the sequence.

Nonteaching employees
Non-civil service districts are subject to the contract sequence requirements of RC 3319.081 for nonteaching employee contracts. Under the revised provisions, the following contract sequence applies: initial contract is for no more than one year; if the employee is rehired, his or her three subsequent contracts (previously one subsequent contract) will be for two years each; and after the termination of the third two-year contract, the renewal contract is a continuing contract.

Policy implications
Policy GDB, Support Staff Contracts and Compensation Plans, has been updated to reflect the new statutory provisions. Prior to adopting updated policy language or implementing the new contract sequences, districts must closely review negotiated agreements to determine how these new provisions may conflict with bargained language and work with legal counsel to determine which sequence to follow. If you do not follow the new provisions, you should consider generalizing the policy prior to adoption, or you may choose to remove the policy to avoid any conflicting language.

Compliance reporting
Districts are subject to various requirements requiring reports to ODE. Newly enacted RC 3301.68 requires ODE to establish, distribute and monitor a consolidated school mandate report for school districts. Each district must complete and file the report by Nov. 30 annually.

The report must require each district or school to denote “yes” to indicate compliance or “no” to indicate noncompliance with the following prescribed items and to provide any other information that the department requests for those items:

training on the use of physical restraint or seclusion on students, pursuant to RC 3319.46;
training on harassment, intimidation or bullying, pursuant to RC 3313.666, 3313.667 and 3319.073;
training on the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and an automated external defibrillator under RC 3313.60, 3313.6023, 3313.717 and 3314.16;
training on crisis prevention intervention;
the establishment of a wellness committee;
the reporting of a district’s or school’s compliance with nutritional standards prescribed by RC 3313.814;
screening of pupils for hearing, vision, speech and communications and health or medical problems and for any developmental disorders, pursuant to RC 3313.673;
compliance with interdistrict and intradistrict open enrollment requirements.

If a district or school denotes “no” on any item, it must provide a written explanation to the board within 30 days for why that item was not completed and a written plan of action for accurately and efficiently addressing the problem.

Policy implications
Policies EBBA, First Aid; EFF, Food Sale Standards; EFG, Wellness Program; JHCA, Physical Examinations of Students; JFCF, Hazing and Bullying (Harassment, Intimidation and Dating Violence); and JP, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (Restraint and Seclusion), have been updated to reflect these reporting requirements.

Teacher evaluation
Teacher evaluation has been continually evaluated and amended since the initial implementation of the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES). SB 216 presents a major change to the teacher evaluation system.

Before we take a brief look at some of the coming changes, it is important to understand the implementation timelines. The bill specifically provides that for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years, districts not participating in a new OTES pilot project (addressed in the bill) are to conduct teacher evaluations in accordance with current OTES requirements.

Districts must adopt updated policies based on the new requirements and framework by July 1, 2020, and implement the revised evaluation system beginning with the 2020-21 school year. The State Board is required to update the evaluation framework by May 1, 2020, and ODE must develop a pilot program to guide implementation of the revised state framework.

The State Board framework revisions must be based on the recommendations of the Educator Standards Board, and at least one public hearing on the revised framework must be held. The framework still must provide for multiple evaluation factors, but the requirement for the student academic growth measure to count as 50% of each evaluation has been eliminated.

Instead, each evaluation must include at least two measures of high-quality student data to provide evidence of student learning attributable to the teacher being evaluated. The State Board must define “high-quality student data.”

When applicable to the grade level or subject area taught by a teacher, high-quality student data must include the value-added progress dimension as one of the measures. Specific language prohibits the use of student learning objectives or shared attribution measures.

Additional highlights of the evaluation system changes include:

removes the requirement for accomplished and skilled teachers to also have a student growth measure of average or higher to be eligible for less frequent evaluations and adds a requirement for these teachers to develop specified professional growth plans;
removes the option for accomplished teachers to be evaluated via one formal observation and one approved project;
revises language around a professional growth and improvement plan;
eliminates the alternative framework.

More information and updated policy language will be provided in advance of the 2020-21 school year. No policy updates are necessary at this time, as districts should continue to follow current policies.

Five-year forecasts
Districts are required to submit five-year forecasts to ODE. SB 216 and House Bill 87 both revised these requirements to extend this date from Oct. 31 to Nov. 30.

Policy implications
Policy DBD, Budget Planning (Five-Year Forecast), has been updated to reflect the revised date for five-year forecast filing.

Additional changes
SB 216 made various other changes to district obligations, some of which are highlighted here. These outlined changes do not require specific policy updates at this time but are important to be aware of moving forward.

Revises some requirements for community school operations, including the requirement for students enrolled in a charter school to be automatically withdrawn after failing to participate without a legitimate excuse in 72 (previously 105) consecutive hours of provided learning opportunities.
Establishes specific parameters to be used by ODE in developing procedures for determining full-time equivalency for students enrolled in online community schools.
Beginning in the 2019-20 school year, allows boards to adopt a resolution by May 1, in the school year prior to implementation, to administer the third-grade English language arts and/or mathematics assessments in a paper format in any school year for which the board passes the resolution unless otherwise required to administer an online assessment due to specific reasons in law (RC 3301.0711(G)(4)).
Beginning with the 2019-20 school year, districts with less than 80% of students scoring proficient or higher on the third-grade reading assessment are required to establish a reading improvement plan supported by reading specialists and implement this plan after school board approval.
Changes the minimum number of students (N-size) in a group for calculation of the annual measurable objectives grade on the state report card to:
- 25 students for the 2017-18 school year;
- 20 students for the 2018-19 school year;
- 15 students for the 2019-20 school year and beyond.
Added International Baccalaureate programs to the list of gifted services.
Requires the revision of gifted rules establishing professional development requirements for general education teachers (see recently revised Ohio Administrative Code 3301-51-15).
Requires ODE to conduct a cost-effectiveness study for the College Credit Plus (CCP) program within one year of the bill’s effective date and to submit a report of the findings to the governor, chancellor of higher education, each member of the General Assembly and the superintendent of each school district and ESC. The study must include information on the cost-effectiveness for secondary schools and program participants as well as whether students participating in the program save money on college tuition and reduce the time needed to complete a degree.

Return to top

House Bill 438 revises options for ESC boards

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

House Bill (HB) 438, effective Sept. 28, revises language related to ESC boards. Under the revised provisions, any ESC may now choose to add appointed members to the board. This provision previously only applied to the boards of joint ESCs.

If the ESC governing board wants to add appointed board members, a plan must be adopted for adding appointed members. The plan may add up to one less than the total number of elected members on the board, provided the total number of elected and appointed members combined is an odd number. The plan must define the terms of the appointed members, and members must be appointed by a majority vote of the full number of elected ESC board members.

The plan also must address how vacancies will be filled and must specify the qualifications of the appointed board members, including the experience, knowledge and skills that advance the ESC’s mission and vision. The appointed members may be representative of the client school districts of the ESC that are not otherwise represented on the board. These qualification changes also now apply to joint ESCs.

If an ESC wants to adopt a plan allowing for appointed members, the plan must be submitted to the State Board of Education for approval. The State Board may approve or disapprove the plan or make recommendations for modification. The plan is effective 30 days after State Board approval. Moving forward, board appointments must be made in accordance with the plan.

An ESC with an approved plan may, at any time, choose to adopt a resolution to revise or rescind the plan by a unanimous vote of all elected members. The resolution must specify the dates and manner in which the revision or rescission will take place, and the revision or rescission must be submitted for State Board approval. The State Board may approve or disapprove the revision or rescission or make recommendations for modification. If approved, it will go into effect as provided for in the revision or rescission.

HB 438 also adds language allowing a local school district to sever its territory from its current ESC and annex to an adjacent ESC if it had severed and annexed its territory under Ohio Revised Code (RC) 3311.059 as it existed prior to June 30, 2011. The process outlined in newly enacted RC 3311.059, as outlined in HB 438, may be used in lieu of the process outlined in RC 3311.231.

The severance and annexation action is subject to both State Board approval and referendum by petition of the district's voters. That action cannot be effective sooner than one year after July 1 following the later of the date the State Board approves the action or the date voters approve the action at a referendum election, if one is held. If a district severs from its ESC and annexes to another, it cannot do so again for at least four years after the prior action's effective date. If this provision applies to you and you want to take advantage of it, make sure you closely review the new RC 3311.059.

ESCs now may establish local professional development committees (LPDC) to serve educators who are not employed in Ohio schools, including licensed pupil services personnel. If the ESC chooses to form one, the ESC LPDC must be structured in a manner comparable to the structures prescribed for school districts.

Policy implications
The notes section of BB, School Board Legal Status, has been updated to include general information on the option for ESCs to add appointed members. ESCs choosing to adopt a plan should contact OSBA after State Board plan approval to determine how to best customize policies to reflect the inclusion of appointed board members.

Return to top

Change in athletic transfer bylaws

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

In May, the Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA) membership passed several referendum items, including revisions to transfer bylaws addressing when students can begin to participate in OHSAA sports after a transfer between schools. Other changes impacting residency eligibility bylaws and some exceptions also were amended. A summary of the eight items passed is available here.

The transfer bylaw is the most frequently questioned eligibility bylaw. OHSAA has a helpful summary of the recently revised transfer bylaws and exceptions here. Districts should review the information to better understand the changes.

Under the revised bylaw, students in grades nine to 12 are eligible for athletics for the first 50% of the maximum allowable regular season contests in the sports the student participated in during the 12 months immediately preceding the transfer. The student is ineligible for the remainder of the regular season contests and ineligible to participate in OHSAA tournaments in these sports until the one-year anniversary date of enrollment in the school the student transferred to.

If the transfer takes place during the sport season in which a student has participated in a regular season interscholastic contest, the student is ineligible for the remainder of that sport’s season, and the student must finish fulfilling his or her transfer consequence for only that sport in which the midseason transfer occurred at the commencement of the sport season during the next school year. He or she is ineligible for all regular season contests until the total number of regular season contests missed, including those missed during the previous season, equals 50% of the maximum allowable regular season contests in that sport. Exceptions to the ineligibility provisions are outlined in OHSAA bylaws.

Policy implications
Policy IGDJ, Interscholastic Athletics, has been updated to reflect these changes. Districts also should review district-level materials, including handbooks, to make necessary updates. Visit the OHSAA website for more information on the bylaws.

Return to top

Open enrollment policies

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

All boards, excluding ESCs, are required to adopt interdistrict open enrollment policies that permit a student to enroll in a district other than the student’s home district. Additionally, all districts, excluding joint vocational school districts and ESCs, must adopt intradistrict open enrollment policies that allow students to enroll in a school building in the same school district other than the one the student is assigned to by the superintendent.

The requirements for interdistrict open enrollment policies are outlined in Ohio Revised Code (RC) 3313.98 and Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3301-48-02. Requirements for intradistrict open enrollment policies are outlined in RC 3313.97 and OAC 3301-48-01.

The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) is responsible for overseeing compliance with these requirements. OAC 3301-48-01 and 3301-48-02 were recently updated to clarify this oversight. Under the new provisions, any change to open enrollment — intradistrict or interdistrict — policies must be certified to ODE within 30 days of adoption. ODE may request a district to report any complaints filed or received about its interdistrict and intradistrict open enrollment policies and may request documentation to verify open enrollment policies are being adhered to and complaints are being addressed. This oversight may include on-site visits.

Districts are still required to report to ODE compliance with open enrollment policy requirements on an annual basis. This reporting is now to be part of the consolidated school mandate report outlined in Senate Bill 216 and addressed elsewhere in this PDQ issue.

Policy implications
Policies JECBB, Interdistrict Open Enrollment (Joint Vocational School Districts); JECBB, Interdistrict Open Enrollment (do not participate); JECBB, Interdistrict Open Enrollment (adjacent district only); JECBB, Interdistrict Open Enrollment (statewide); JECBD, Intradistrict Open Enrollment (Version 1); and JECBD, Intradistrict Open Enrollment (Version 2), have been updated to reflect the new requirements. Remember to provide these updated policies and other documentation to ODE when applicable and establish a process for documenting adherence to open enrollment policies and handling of complaints.

Return to top

Other provisions and changes impacting school districts

by Kyle E. Lathwell, policy consultant

House Bill 87
House Bill (HB) 87, effective Nov. 2, included a few provisions that may impact your local policies or practices.

Safe harbor for schools enrolling displaced students
HB 87 amends some provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 216, passed on June 27, regarding the impact of enrolling students displaced by an e-school that was suspended by its sponsor during the 2017-18 school year.

This language speaks more to exempting community schools from mandatory closure based on poor performance but also addresses school districts generally. Specifically, for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years, a school district that experienced an increase in enrollment of more than 20% in the 2017-18 school year due to the enrollment of displaced enrollees shall not be considered a new challenged school where new start-up community schools may be located. The percentage noted in SB 216 was 10%.

District treasurers and the signing of documents
HB 87 also makes changes related to the signing of certain documents by a school district treasurer.

First, under newly enacted Ohio Revised Code (RC) 3313.241, a district superintendent or the president of the district’s board of education (instead of the treasurer) must sign and execute any employment contracts, salary notices and other employment-related documents of the school district treasurer or any member of the treasurer’s family on behalf of the district.

Second, RC 3313.26 is amended to make clear that the treasurer’s attestation when signing the board’s official minutes is only to the accuracy of the information contained in the record. This attestation is not to be construed to serve as authorization or execution of any action taken or not taken during the meeting. The treasurer only signs in a personal capacity.

Annual measurable objectives
Under Ohio Administrative Code 3301-28-02, local report cards include a graded performance measure for the annual measurable objectives to assess academic achievement gaps in Ohio. The measure evaluates the academic performance of specific groups of students, including racial and demographic groups.

Each group is compared against the collective performance of all students. Grades are to be awarded in accordance with the agreement between the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) and the U.S. Department of Education.

According to new language within this rule, beginning with the local report card released for the 2017-18 school year, the agreement refers to the approved state plan under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act.

HB 21
Community school enrollment and verification
Per current law under RC 3314.11, district boards of education are to conduct monthly reviews of enrollment records of students in their district who are enrolled in community schools. This process includes a verification to ODE of which community school the student attends and that the student is entitled to attend school in the district.

Due to HB 21 amendments effective Sept. 28, the obligation to conduct the monthly review shifts to the community school’s governing authority. Governing authorities must conduct the monthly reviews of residency records of students enrolled in the community school. The governing authority also must submit the verification of the resident school district to ODE. This must take place upon the enrollment of each student and on an annual basis.

Generally, this will shift much of the administrative costs of verifying community school student residence away from school districts. The school district is entitled to review the determination made by the community school.

If there is a disagreement about a student’s resident district, the procedure stays the same as it is under current law. The community school must provide the student’s resident district with documentation of the student’s residency and make a good faith effort to correctly identify the student’s residence. The matter may be referred to ODE, if necessary, and ODE must decide within 30 days.

Storm shelters
Under new RC 3781.1010, the requirement to have storm shelters, per the Ohio Board of Building Standards, is delayed. The bill prohibits this requirement from applying to any public or private school building either in operation, undergoing or about to undergo construction, alteration, repair or maintenance for which financing has been secured prior to Sept. 15, 2019.

This will serve to reduce construction expenses in public districts and schools that were supposed to begin facilities projects before that date, because they would have needed to add a storm shelter to the plan to comply with the building code requirement.

Policy implications
The majority of the information contained in this article does not have policy implications, but districts should review locally adopted policies and procedures for any needed updates. Policy BDDG, Minutes, has been updated to reflect statutory changes and is included with this PDQ issue.

Return to top