Note: To print this issue, you may need to choose the "shrink to fit" option in the print window.
In this issue: The new College Credit Plus program • Updates to the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System • Managing diabetes care • Important revisions to school safety plans • New snack rules take effect • Graduation opt-out changes • New graduation assessments and pathways • Changes to career-technical education • Changes to extracurricular activities • Additional House Bill 487 changes • House Bill 483 changes • Released time for religious instruction • Uniform depository act • Sample policies included with this issue
The new College Credit Plus program
by Megan Greulich, policy consultant
In yet another change from House bill (HB) 487, the new College Credit Plus (CCP) program will replace the current postsecondary enrollment options (PSEO) program beginning in the 2015-16 school year. First, it is important to note there are no policy changes associated with the new program at this time, as the current PSEO system will remain effective for the 2014-15 school year. Watch for updated policy language as the change to CCP gets closer. In the meantime, boards should keep current PSEO policy language in place for the 2014-15 school year.
It is a good idea to begin reviewing the new requirements to prepare for the switch to the new system. Ohio Revised Code (RC) Section 3365.02 establishes CCP, under which, beginning with school year 2015-16, students may enroll at a college part or full time and complete courses for high school and college credit. CCP does not, however, include Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate diploma courses. The coursed are paired with the former dual enrollment under the new title of "Advanced Standing."
State law requires all public secondary schools and colleges to participate in the program. The new language also extends the program to include students in grades seven to 12, not just grades nine to 12. Students in grades seven and eight who wish to participate must, however, meet the same requirements as students in grades nine to 12. It also is important to note that the new language prohibits charging students tuition or fees associated with participation in the program.
RC 3365.04 requires districts to do a variety of things to comply with the new program. First, they must provide information about the program to all students enrolled in grades six to 11 prior to March 1 each year. Districts also must provide counseling services to students in grades six to 11 and their parents before program participation. The required counseling services are intended to make students and parents fully aware of the benefits and consequences of participation. Districts also must promote the program on school websites. Districts must schedule at least one informational session per school year to allow partnering colleges located within 30 miles to meet with interested students and parents.
Districts must implement a policy for awarding grades and calculating class standings for courses taken under the CCP program. Model course pathways also must be developed and published among the school’s official list of course offerings for the program. Details on the requirements for developing model course pathways are set forth in RC 3365.13. And finally, districts are required to collect, report and track data related to the program annually. Beyond the requirements for districts, RC 3365 also sets requirements for college participation.
Again, board policy language should remain the same for this school year. Updated sample policy language will be available in future Policy Development Quarterly (PDQ) issues.
Updates to the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System
by Megan Greulich, policy consultant
Amended House Bill (HB) 362 includes several adjustments that will impact board policy and practical implementation of the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES). Some changes require board policy language updates and others only will require changes if the board decides to take advantage of the available options. Let’s take a look at the recent changes.
The first change deals with the board’s ability to choose not to evaluate “accomplished” teachers annually. The old language allowed boards to adopt a resolution if they wished to evaluate teachers who received an accomplished rating on their most recent evaluations every two years. The new language makes adjustments and expands the option to teachers rated as skilled.
First, the legislation removes the requirement that boards adopt a resolution to evaluate eligible teachers differently. Beyond this, teachers rated as accomplished may now be evaluated every three years, as long as their student academic growth measure rating for the most recent school year for which data is available is average or higher, as determined by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE). If students do not demonstrate at least average student growth, these teachers must be evaluated annually.
This option also has been extended to teachers rated as skilled on their most recent evaluations. For these teachers, an evaluation may be conducted once every two years as long as their student academic growth measure rating for the most recent year for which data is available are average or higher. If students don’t demonstrate at least average student growth, these teachers must be evaluated annually.
Any teacher not formally evaluated as a result of receiving an accomplished or skilled rating on his or her most recent evaluation still needs to be observed by an individual qualified to evaluate the teacher, and at least one conference with the teacher must be held on annually. This provides for some contact with accomplished and skilled teachers during off years. It’s also important to note that teachers rated as developing or ineffective must receive a full evaluation and at least two observations annually.
Regardless of how the board chooses to evaluate teachers falling into either of these two categories, it is important to ensure board policy language accurately reflects what is expected and required.
Beginning with the 2014-15 school year, the board also may elect not to conduct evaluations for teachers who meet certain requirements. Boards may choose not to evaluate a teacher who was on leave for 50% or more of the school year, as calculated by the board. The board also may choose not to evaluate a teacher whose notice of retirement has been accepted by the board on or before Dec. 1 of the school year in which the evaluation would have been conducted.
HB 362 also added Ohio Revised Code (RC) Section 3319.114, which provides an alternative evaluation framework option beginning with the 2014-15 school year. During that school year, boards can either use the 50-50 method and base evaluations on 50% student academic growth and 50% teacher performance, or they can use the alternative method and base evaluations on 42.5% student academic growth and 42.5% teacher performance. The remaining 15% of the evaluation under the alternative framework must come from the choice of one of the following components: student surveys, teacher self-evaluations, peer review evaluations or student portfolios.
The alternative framework changes further in the 2015-16 school year. Boards may still choose to evaluate under the 50-50 framework. The alternative framework, however, allows for student academic growth measures accounting for 42.5% up to 50% and teacher performance accounting for 42.5% up to 50%. Any remaining percentage will then be accounted for by choosing one of the following: student surveys, teacher self-evaluations, peer review evaluations or student portfolios.
Under this alternative option, regardless of the percentage associated with each measure, teacher performance and student academic growth measures must account for an equal percentage of each rating. So for example, if the district chooses to place a 45% weight on student academic growth, teacher performance also must be 45%. In this example the remaining 10% must be based on one of the listed components.
The new language also requires ODE to compile a list of approved instruments for districts to use for evaluating the components for the remaining percentage. The list must be compiled for use by districts beginning with the 2014-15 school year. Districts will then be required to choose one of the approved instruments to evaluate the applicable component selected from the available options listed in RC 3319.114.
If the board previously elected to adopt policy language dealing with evaluating accomplished teachers every two years, board policy should be updated to reflect these changes. Since the resolution requirement has been eliminated, language referring to these options is no longer required to appear in board policy. It may, however, be a good idea to make reference to this practice if the board elects to take advantage of these options. Clear policy statements help keep everyone aware of what is required and expected of staff. Districts choosing to employ the alternative framework also should update board policy to reflect these changes. Sample language dealing with changes effective for next school year are available for download with this PDQ issue. Any future changes will be discussed in coming PDQ issues, and any associated language changes will be available at that time.
Managing diabetes care
by Kenna S. Haycox, policy consultant
House Bill (HB) 264, effective Sept. 11, outlines new requirements for districts in providing care for students with diabetes.
The provisions of HB 264 apply to all public school districts; science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) schools; college preparatory boarding schools; and community schools. The bill, as passed, indicated the newly enacted section of state law for these requirements would be Ohio Revised Code (RC) 3313.7110. However, this code section was already taken by the newly enacted EpiPen legislation. As a result, the Legislative Service Commission (LSC) assigned RC 3313.7112 as the new section for diabetes legislation. Let’s take a look at the provisions of HB 264 and how they impact school districts.
Requirements for care
Under RC 3313.7112(B), districts are required to ensure each enrolled student with diabetes receives appropriate and needed diabetes care in accordance with an order signed by the student’s treating physician. This care includes any of the following:
• checking and recording blood glucose levels and ketone levels or assisting the student with checking and recording these levels;
• responding to blood glucose levels that are outside of the student’s target range;
• administering glucagon and other emergency treatments as prescribed in the case of severe hypoglycemia;
• administering insulin or assisting the student in self-administering insulin through the insulin-delivery system the student uses;
• providing oral diabetes medications;
• understanding recommended schedules and food intake for meals and snacks in order to calculate medication dosages pursuant to the student’s physician’s order;
• following the physician’s instructions for meals, snacks and physical activity;
• administering diabetes medication as long as statutory requirements are met.
Diabetes medications may be administered by a school nurse or, in the absence of a school nurse, a school employee trained in diabetes care in accordance with state law. When administering diabetes medication, a school nurse or trained employee also must comply with the requirements found in current law (RC 3313.713) on administering drugs in schools. Medication that is to be administered under HB 264 provisions may be kept in an easily accessible location.
Notification and training requirements
HB 264 creates a new notification requirement for districts. Within 14 days of receiving an order signed by a student with diabetes' treating physician, the board must inform the student’s parent, guardian or other person having care or charge of the student that the child may be entitled to a 504 plan regarding the student’s diabetes. In addition, the bill specifies that a student’s rights, and the obligations of a district under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Section 504) or Americans with Disabilities Act are not diminished by the bill’s provisions. The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) must develop a 504 plan informational sheet to be used for the newly required notification.
In addition to creating this informational sheet, ODE is required, within 180 days of the bill’s effective date, to adopt nationally recognized guidelines for training school employees in student diabetes care. In developing these guidelines, ODE is required to consult with the Ohio Department of Health, American Diabetes Association and Ohio School Nurses Association; ODE also may consult with any other appropriate organization. The guidelines developed must address the following:
• recognizing the symptoms of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia;
• the appropriate treatment for a student who exhibits the symptoms of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia;
• recognizing situations that require providing emergency medical assistance to a student;
• understanding the appropriate treatment for a student, based on his or her physician’s order, if the student’s blood glucose level is not within the target range indicated by the order;
• understanding the instructions in a student’s physician’s order concerning necessary medications;
• performing blood glucose and ketone tests in accordance with a student’s physician’s order and recording the results of those tests;
• administering insulin, glucagon or other medication in accordance with a student’s physician’s order and recording the results of the administration;
• understanding the relationship between the diet recommended in a student’s physician’s order and actions that may be taken if the recommended diet is not followed.
The ODE-developed guidelines play a key role in HB 264 training components. Under RC 3313.7112(E), each board may provide training that complies with the ODE-developed guidelines to a school employee at a school attended by a student with diabetes. If provided, this training must take place before the beginning of each school year, or as needed, no later than 14 days after receiving an order signed by the student with diabetes' treating physician. The training must be coordinated by a school nurse, or if the school does not employ a school nurse, a licensed health care professional with expertise in diabetes who is approved by the school to provide the training.
On completion of this training, the board, in a manner it establishes, must determine whether each employee trained is competent to provide diabetes care. The school nurse, or approved licensed health care professional with expertise in diabetes care, is required to promptly provide all necessary follow-up training and supervision to employees who receive training under this section.
The principal or other authorized official of the school a student with diabetes attends may give notice to each employee containing:
• a statement that the school is required to provide diabetes care to a student with diabetes and is seeking employees who are willing to be trained to provide that care;
• a description of the tasks to be performed;
• a statement that participation is voluntary and the school district will not take action against an employee who does not agree to provide diabetes care;
• a statement that training will be provided by a licensed health care professional to an employee who agrees to provide care;
• a statement that a trained employee is immune from liability as provided for in RC 3313.7112(J);
• the name of the individual who should be contacted if an employee is interested in providing diabetes care.
The board cannot subject an employee to a penalty or disciplinary action under school or district policies for refusing to volunteer to be trained in diabetes care, and must not discourage employees from agreeing to provide diabetes care under this section. A school employee is not subject to disciplinary action under school or district policies for providing care or performing duties specified in the bill.
In addition to the more comprehensive training on diabetes care, the board may provide training that addresses emergencies. A district may provide training to a school employee who has primary responsibility for supervising a student with diabetes during some portion of the school day — as well as a bus driver employed by the district who is responsible for the transportation of a student with diabetes — on recognizing hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, and actions to take in emergency situations involving these conditions.
Students
HB 264 addresses some specific rights for students with diabetes. The first is that a student with diabetes must be permitted to attend the school the student would otherwise attend if he or she did not have diabetes. Diabetes care, as outlined in the treating physician’s orders and meeting the provisions of RC 3313.7112(B), must be provided at the school in accordance with statutory requirements. The district cannot restrict a student with diabetes from attending a particular school because that school does not have a full-time school nurse or an employee trained in diabetes care. In addition, the school cannot require or pressure a parent, guardian or other person having care or charge of a student to provide diabetes care for their student at school or school-related activities.
Under RC 3313.7112(H), upon written request of the student’s parent, guardian or other person having care or charge of the student, a student with diabetes must be permitted to attend to the self-care and management of his or her diabetes during regular school hours and school-sponsored activities if the student’s treating physician determines the student is capable of performing the diabetes care tasks. The care must be in accordance with the student’s physician’s orders and the student must be permitted to perform diabetes care tasks in any area of the school or school grounds (including in a classroom) and at any school-related activity. The student also must be allowed to possess, at all times, the necessary supplies and equipment to perform the tasks. Students must be provided access to a private area for performing diabetes care tasks if requested by the student, parent, guardian or other person having care or charge of the student. If a student performs any diabetes care tasks or uses medical equipment for purposes other than the student’s own care, the board may revoke the student’s permission to attend to the care and management of his or her diabetes under this provision.
Liability and reporting
In addition to these requirements, RC 3313.7112(J) provides that a school, school district, board member or district employee is not liable for damages in a civil action for injury, death or loss to person or property allegedly arising from providing care or performing duties required by the bill, unless the act or omission constitutes willful or wanton misconduct. A school nurse or other licensed health professional also is immune from disciplinary action by the Ohio Board of Nursing or any other regulatory board if the care provided or duties performed are consistent with applicable professional standards.
The final component of HB 264 is a reporting requirement. By Dec. 31, the board must annually report to ODE both the number of students with diabetes enrolled in the district and the number of errors associated with administering diabetes medication during the previous school year. By March 31 of each year, ODE must issue a report to be made available on its website that summarizes district information for the previous school year.
Practical implications
So what does all this mean for school districts? The first step is to understand the new HB 264 requirements. Once receiving an order from the treating physician for treatment of a student with diabetes, districts must make the required notification. In addition, begin communicating now with school nurses or other health care professionals about how the requirements of this bill will be implemented in the district this school year. Consider educating staff on district obligations for students with diabetes so they are aware of what needs may arise. If the district chooses to offer training to employees, ensure the notification, if done, is in accordance with state law and that any training provided meets the statutory requirements. Continue to look for information from ODE, including guidelines and 504 notification guidance.
Policy implications
From a policy standpoint, there are no specific board policy requirements. Some updates have been made to JHCD, Administering Medicines to Students, to better reflect the requirements specific to diabetes medications. The legal references and notes section also have been updated. In addition to reviewing this policy, now is a good time to look at the accompanying regulations to ensure the district is up-to-date. The updated policy and accompanying regulations are available with this PDQ issue.
Important revisions to school safety plans
by Van D. Keating, director of management services
Ohioans have not been spared the trauma and horror of natural disasters or school shootings. As a result, all school districts in the state had to develop and adopt comprehensive safety plans to prepare for such emergencies. The Ohio legislature recently adopted several important amendments to Ohio Revised Code Section 3313.536 and included subsections in House Bill (HB) 487 that affect school district safety plans and board policies.
So, what’s changed? First, the name of these plans has been altered to “emergency management plans,” which is an outward indicator of the comprehensive and serious nature of them. All too often, safety has been associated with accident prevention rather than security measures and/or unexpected events that compromise the health or well-being of students, staff or members of the public. Since any of these situations can, and have, occurred on school district grounds, boards are required to develop comprehensive emergency management plans to prevent or mitigate such emergencies. Simply stated, school district plans are about much more than safety, they are contingencies for all types of emergencies.
Second, some of the procedures for submitting these plans have been revised. Until now, districts were required to submit emergency plans directly to the attorney general’s office. Under the new law, the district is required to submit plans to the Ohio Department of Education (ODE), which will then submit them to the attorney general’s office and the Ohio Department of Public Safety.
Additionally, the district must file copies with law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over each building and, upon request, to the fire departments and emergency medical services that serve each district building. Similarly, if the district makes any revisions to the plans, those changes must be filed in the same manner no later than the 10th day after the revision is adopted.
The legal revisions also specify the district “administrator” specifically named as the individual responsible for developing, revising and filing these plans. Previous law identified the school board as the responsible party, but by more specifically naming the responsible position, accountability (and penalties) can now be easily enforced. The law defines administrator as being the superintendent, principal, chief administrative officer or other person having supervisory authority. The district’s administrator has to review the emergency management plan and certify to ODE the plan is accurate and current no later than July 1 each year.
One annual emergency management test is required, and if the responsible law enforcement or emergency responders request access to buildings to conduct training, it must be granted. However, any such training must be conducted outside student instructional hours, and the administrator or designee must be present in the building during the training.
For its part, ODE is required to adopt rules regarding emergency management plans, including the plans’ content and procedures for filing. Fortunately, ODE also is required to develop standardized forms, which should alleviate some of the practical problems encountered when the original law was enacted. Failure to comply can result in discipline for the administrator as well as possible other actions.
The new legal revisions specifically state that a floor plan filed with the attorney general under the emergency management plans section is not a public record to the extent that it is kept as a record by that agency. In other words, a public records request to the attorney general’s office for floor plans will not be honored because they are kept only for emergency management purposes. Nor are copies of these plans kept by the district or any other law enforcement, fire department or emergency responders considered a public record. This is because they are sensitive emergency plans whose effectiveness would be completely compromised if a nefarious member of the public or the media was able to access them.
OSBA’s sample Safety Program and Emergency/Safety Plans policies (EB and EBC) and the closely related Administrative Rules/Protocols (EBC-R) are all affected by these changes in Ohio law. As noted earlier, the phrase emergency management plan will need to be incorporated and the district’s administrator for emergency plan purposes must be identified. Equally important, districts need to carefully read and consider these changes to gain a greater appreciation of the serious nature of these plans.
New snack rules take effect
by Kenna S. Haycox, policy consultant
The Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act (HHFKA) of 2010 established several rules for free and reduced-price lunch programs. HHFKA also required the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish rules for the sale of all food and beverages in schools sold beyond the federal child nutrition programs. USDA issued an interim final rule June 28, 2013, and the requirements took effect July 1.
Senate Bill 210 and USDA rules
The new USDA rule applies to all food and beverages sold outside the school meal program on school campus during the school day. Ohio passed Senate Bill (SB) 210 in 2010, which put several standards in place for items sold outside of school meals.
The standards adopted by the USDA and SB 210 requirements apply to food and beverages sold to students only. Any food and beverages that are only sold or accessible to adults are exempt from the standards. The USDA rules define school day as the period from midnight before to 30 minutes after the end of the official school day. The rules define school campus as all areas of the property under the jurisdiction of the school that are accessible to students during the school day. Schools participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) are required to follow the more restrictive standards when comparing SB 210 and USDA rules.
The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) has created a fact sheet on the new USDA rules. The ODE information includes a chart outlining the USDA and Ohio Revised Code standards. The table also includes a column explaining which standard districts must comply with. Please download and review this information to understand the new rules and their impact. Additional resources on the new snack rules and how they impact Ohio are available at http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/Food-and-Nutrition/National-School-Lunch-and-Breakfast/2012-NSLP-Summer-Regional-Workshops-Presentations.
Policy implications
The specific details of required nutritional values, item sizes and other information, as well as when items can be sold, are beyond the scope of what is required to appear in board policy. These guidelines should be implemented through district-level procedures. Policy EFF, Food Sale Standards, meets the board policy requirements for this topic. The policy has been updated and is available for download with this PDQ issue. In addition, districts should review any locally developed policies and district-level wellness plans to ensure no updates are necessary based on the new snack rules.
Graduation opt-out changes
by Megan Greulich, policy consultant
House Bill (HB) 487 makes several changes to current graduation opt-out provisions, which appear in Ohio Revised Code (RC) Section 3313.603(D). The bill first extends the provision through July 2016. Previously, it was only available to students entering ninth grade on or after July 1, 2010, and before July 1, 2014.
The new language also adjusts some of the terminology previously used under the opt out. The student, student’s parent, guardian or custodian, and a representative of the student’s high school must now develop a “student success plan” (previously an individual career plan) under RC 3313.6020(C)(1). The student success plan must address the student’s academic pathway to a successful graduation, and the role of career-technical education, competency-based education and experiential learning, as appropriate, in that pathway. Districts also are required to notify the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) of both the number of students who choose to opt out and the number who complete the student success plan.
Also notable are changes to the minimum requirements for graduation under the opt-out provisions. First, students must complete, at a minimum, four units of mathematics, with one unit required to be one of the following:
• probability and statistics;
• computer programming;
• applied mathematics or quantitative reasoning;
• any other course approved by ODE using standards established by the superintendent no later than Oct. 1.
The elective units have been adjusted from six to five to account for the extra mathematics unit. Finally, the new language specifies that the three required science units must include inquiry-based laboratory experience that engages students in asking valid scientific questions and gathering and analyzing information.
The new language also extends ODE’s deadline for submitting recommendations on extension of the opt out to Dec. 1, 2015.
Policy IKF, Graduation Requirements, has been updated to reflect the date extension. Regulation IKF-R, Graduation Requirements (Opt Out), has been revised to include the date extension, new terminology and minimum required units. Exhibit IKF-E, Graduation Requirements (Opt Out Informed Consent Agreement), also is available for download, as the title has changed.
New graduation assessments and pathways
by Megan Greulich, policy consultant
House Bill (HB) 487 recently revised the state’s graduation assessments required for a high school diploma. The changes impact students entering ninth grade for the first time on or after July 1. The assessment system now involves seven end-of-course examinations, including:
• English/language arts I;
• English/language arts II;
• physical science;
• algebra I or integrated mathematics I (beginning school year 2016-17 for students entering ninth grade on or after July 1, 2016, the State Board of Education may substitute algebra II);
• geometry or integrated mathematics II;
• American history;
• American government.
RC 3301.0712 also specifies that Advanced Placement examinations, International Baccalaureate examinations and dual enrollment or advanced standing program examinations in the areas of physical science, American history and American government may be used as end-of-course examinations in accordance with the requirements.
The new language also requires the State Board to consider additional assessments that may be used in lieu of prescribed end-of-course examinations, beginning with the 2016-17 school year. The State Board also is required to designate at least five score ranges for end-of-course examinations. These score ranges will demonstrate achievement in one of the following levels of skill: advanced, accelerated, proficient, basic or limited.
There are no policy language changes associated with these new requirements. It’s important for districts and boards to be aware of the changing assessment requirements, but language this specific needn’t appear in board policy. Any relevant policies and procedures dealing with assessments should be dealt with separately and on the district level.
Diploma pathways
HB 487 creates three alternative paths to graduation in addition to the regular curriculum requirements. These graduation pathways appear in RC 3313.618 and apply to students entering ninth grade for the first time on or after July 1. In order to qualify for a high school diploma, eligible students must satisfy at least one of the following conditions:
• be remediation-free on each of the nationally standardized assessments in English, mathematics and reading;
• attain a cumulative score (to be determined by the State Board) on the seven end-of-course examinations;
• attain a score that demonstrates workforce readiness and employability on a nationally recognized job skills assessment and obtain either an industry-recognized credential or license issued by a state agency or board for practice in a vocation that requires an examination for issuance of that license.
There are no board policy requirements associated with the new diploma pathways.
Changes to career-technical education
by Kenna S. Haycox, policy consultant
House Bill (HB) 487 made changes to the career-technical education districts are required to provide. The revisions appear in Ohio Revised Code (RC) 3313.90. The term “vocational” education has been replaced with “career-technical” education.
RC 3313.90(A), as revised, now specifies each city, local and exempted village school district must provide career-technical education to students enrolled in grades seven to 12. The other requirements of this code section remain the same and state that the education provided is to be adequate to prepare a student enrolled in the program for an occupation. This education may be provided through one of the following options:
• establishing and maintaining a career-technical education program that meets State Board of Education standards;
• being a member of a JVSD that meets State Board standards;
• contracting for career-technical education with a JVSD or school district that meets State Board standards.
Under RC 3313.90(B), a district may obtain a waiver from the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) from the requirement to provide career-technical education to students enrolled in grades seven and eight. To obtain this waiver, the board must adopt a resolution specifying the district’s intent not to provide career-technical education to students enrolled in grades seven and eight for a particular school. This resolution must be submitted to ODE by Sept. 30 for the specific school year. After receiving this resolution, ODE will grant the waiver for that school year.
In addition to the obligations to provide career-technical education as outlined above, districts that enroll a minimum of 1,500 students in grades nine to 12 are required to provide, where practicable, career-technical education programs in high schools through comprehensive course offerings. Beginning with school year 2015-16, this requirement will apply to districts with a minimum enrollment of 2,500 students in grades seven to 12. Districts still may meet this obligation through current options, including contracting with JVSDs.
Student career-advising policies
HB 487 adds RC 3313.6020, which requires career-advising policies. Starting with school year 2015-16, each board will be required to adopt a policy on career advising that meets certain statutory requirements. The board is required to review this policy every two years. The district also will be required in school year 2015-16 to develop a plan to identify students who are at risk of dropping out of school, and must develop success plans for these students. Since these requirements do not take effect until school year 2015-16, they will be further addressed and policy language will be released in upcoming PDQ issues.
Career exploration guides
In addition to the HB 487 changes, the legislature passed HB 393. Under the new statutory requirements, ODE must post and maintain an online education and career planning tool on its website to help students.
ODE is required, by Sept. 30 each year, to distribute information on the planning tool — which will link to www.ohiomeansjobs.com — to all public high schools. Each high school will be required to share this information annually with parents and students by April 1.
Policy implications
Policy IGAD, Career-Technical Education, has been updated to reflect the expansion of career-technical education to students in grades seven to 12. The notes section also has been updated to reflect the changes.
Changes to extracurricular activities
by Kenna S. Haycox, policy consultant
House Bill (HB) 487, effective Sept. 17, revises Ohio Revised Code (RC) provisions impacting district extracurricular activities. These changes affect community school student access to extracurricular activities, and district requirements for concussion management in interscholastic athletics.
Community school students
Districts should be aware of changes resulting from last year's HB 59 last year that granted resident home-schooled and nonpublic school students access to extracurricular activities in their resident school district. HB 487 once again revises the provisions of state law for access to extracurricular activities. The most significant change is for community school students. Under previous law, only students in grades seven to 12 attending district-sponsored community schools were provided the opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities at the school in which they were eligible to enroll. Under the revised law, all students attending a community school established under RC 3314 are eligible to participate in extracurricular activities at the school to which they would be assigned (RC 3313.537). This access also now applies to all students, with no specific grade-level requirements. HB 487 also removes the provision that allowed districts to require community school students to enroll in no more than one academic class at the school offering the extracurricular activity as a condition of participation.
In addition to the new requirements, HB 487 provides a permissive option for districts. A district may provide a student attending a community or science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) school who is not entitled to attend school in the district the opportunity to participate in an extracurricular activity. The activity must be one that the school in which the student is enrolled does not offer, and cannot be an interscholastic athletic or interscholastic contest or competition in music, drama or forensics.
For both of these options, the community and STEM school students must be of the appropriate age and grade level as determined by the superintendent, and must meet the same academic, nonacademic and financial requirements as any other participant. A district also is prohibited from imposing additional rules on students for participation under RC 3313.537 that do not apply to other students. HB 487 made some additional revisions to 3313.537 that changed some of the terminology for access by STEM students, and essentially combining STEM and community school students into one provision.
Policy implications
Policies IGD, Cocurricular and Extracurricular Activities, and IGDJ, Interscholastic Athletics, have been updated to reflect the new requirements, as well as the permissive options. These policies are available for download with this issue of PDQ.
Concussions
HB 487 also revised some of the requirements for addressing student concussions. Last year, HB 143 created obligations for school districts in regard to managing student concussions in athletics (RC 3313.539). HB 487 revised some of these requirements, specifically addressing individuals who are authorized to clear students having suffered a concussion or head injury to return to practice or play. The provisions of the bill provide clarification on which health professionals can grant clearance.
Under RC 3313.539(E), a student removed from practice or play for exhibiting signs or symptoms of a concussion must be cleared by a physician or licensed health care professional authorized by the board to assess a student in accordance with procedures outlined in state law. HB 487 adds to this list licensed health care professional who meets the minimum education requirements established by rules adopted under newly enacted RC 3707.521.
RC 3707.521 requires the director of health to create a committee to establish training requirements and guidelines for health practitioners who conduct assessments and clearances for students to return to practice or play after being removed for exhibiting signs and symptoms of concussion. The committee, including members required by statute, must do the following within 180 days of the bill’s effective date:
• develop and publish guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and clearance of concussions and head injuries sustained by athletes participating in interscholastic athletics or athletic activities organized by youth sports organizations;
• adopt rules governing minimum education and continuing education requirements for physicians and other licensed health care professionals who conduct assessments of these athletes and grant clearance to return to practice or competition.
When developing the guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and clearance of concussions and head injuries, the director must consider nationally recognized standards for the treatment and care of concussions and the scope of practice of any licensed health care professional as it relates to qualifications to assess and clear student athletes under state law. In addition, an agency responsible for licensing physicians or health care professionals must adopt rules establishing standards equal to or stronger than the guidelines developed by the committee in order to have its licensees authorized to assess and clear athletes under RC 3313.539. As part of this requirement, the licensing agency may adopt rules establishing continuing education requirements for these individuals. Under RC 3313.539(E)(4), beginning Sept. 17, 2015, all physicians and licensed health care professionals who conduct assessments and authorize clearance must meet the minimum education requirements established by the rules adopted by their respective licensing agencies.
Policy implications
OSBA policies addressing student athletics do not contain detailed information on specific requirements for concussions and return–to-play. Districts should review local policies and handbooks to see if any language conflicts with the changes. The notes section of policies IGD, Cocurricular and Extracurricular Activities; IGDJ, Interscholastic Athletics; GCBB, Professional Staff Supplemental Contracts; and GDBB, Support Staff Pupil Activity Contracts, have been updated and are available for download with this PDQ issue.
Additional House Bill 487 changes
by Megan Greulich and Kenna S. Haycox, policy consultants
House Bill (HB) 487 made many changes impacting school district operations. Several of these have been addressed in detail in this PDQ issue. The following is a summary of additional changes to be aware of entering the new school year. Unless otherwise noted, the following take effect Sept. 17.
Third-grade reading guarantee
HB 487 made changes to the third-grade reading guarantee requirements. Most changes appear in the temporary law sections of the bill. The first change specifies which English/language arts assessments will be administered to third-grade students in the 2014-15 school year. For the fall assessment, districts are required to administer the same assessment used the previous school year. For the spring assessment, districts must administer the same assessment used the previous school year to any student whose score would subject him or her to retention under the guarantee. Students with scores above the retention threshold must take the new state reading assessments developed by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) in the spring.
One of the guarantee requirements deals with teacher qualifications for retained students. If a district cannot furnish the number of teachers who satisfy one or more of the required criteria, it may develop and submit an alternative staffing plan to the Ohio Department of Education (ODE). These provisions are outlined in Ohio Revised Code Section (RC) 3313.608. Staffing plans for the 2013-14 school year had to be submitted by June 30, 2013. After this submission, a district could apply for an extension for the 2014-15 or 2015-16 school years. The staffing plan submission option (not just extension of a plan) is available for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years. These plans must be submitted each year by June 30, and districts are required to post them on their websites.
The final change to the third-grade reading guarantee resulting from HB 487 impacts district obligations with nonpublic school students. Effective July 1, 2015, students attending a chartered nonpublic school with either an EdChoice or Cleveland Pilot Project scholarship are subject to retention requirements of the guarantee, unless that student would be exempt if attending a public school. Under this exemption, for purposes of exempting a child with a disability, an individual services plan that exempts the student from retention must be created. This plan must be reviewed by either the student’s school district of residence or the district in which the school is located (RC 3301.163).
Additional guidance and information on the third-grade reading guarantee is available on ODE’s website at http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Early-Learning/Third-Grade-Reading-Guarantee.
In addition, ODE guidance on midyear promotion policies is available here: http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Early-Learning/Third-Grade-Reading-Guarantee/Third-Grade-Reading-Guarantee-District-Resources/Student-Promotion-and-the-Third-Grade-Reading-Guar.
The notes sections of IGBEA, Reading Skills Assessments and Intervention (Third-Grade Reading Guarantee), and IGBEA-R, Reading Skills Assessments and Intervention (Third-Grade Reading Guarantee), have been updated to reflect these changes.
Age and schooling certificates
HB 487 revised some of the current requirements for issuing age and schooling certificates to students older than 16 (RC 3331.04). The previous language stated a student must be unable to pass a test to complete seventh grade and must not be so behind in mental development that they cannot profit from further schooling; it has been removed. English language proficiency was one of the factors for issuing certificates to students 16 or older. This provision was removed, as was the accompanying requirement for English language classes if this was the reason the certificate was granted. The revised requirements are effective until June 30, 2016. Beginning July 1, 2016, an age and schooling certificate may be issued to a child 16 or older who meets these revised requirements and is enrolled in a competency-based instructional program to earn a high school diploma in accordance with rules adopted by the State Board of Education.
The notes section of JK, Employment of Students, has been updated to reflect these changes and is available for download. Take time to review the revised RC 3331.04 when reviewing requests for age and schooling certificates for students older than 16.
GED requirements
HB 487 revised RC 3313.617, which outlines the requirements for taking General Educational Development (GED) tests. Under the revised statute, individuals will be permitted to take the GED tests if:
• they are at least 18 years old;
• they are officially withdrawn from school;
• they have not received a high school diploma or honors diploma.
In addition, a person who is at least 16 but younger than 18 (the previous standard was 19) can apply to ODE to take the GED tests by submitting an application with written approval from his or her parent or guardian, or a court official. The previous requirement for obtaining approval from the superintendent where the student was last enrolled has been removed. No policy changes are necessary as a result of this update; however, check the local materials outlining GED requirements to ensure no updates are necessary.
Safeguarding student data
There has been much discussion lately about safeguarding student data. This is particularly true with assessment data. HB 487 requires the State Board of Education to establish standards to provide strict safeguards to protect the confidentiality of personally identifiable student data, in addition to the guidelines already required under the Education Management Information System (EMIS).
RC 3301.947 requires that data collected for testing be used for the sole purpose of measuring and improving the academic progress and needs of students, educators, school districts and schools. It also requires that, in the course of testing, no student’s or student’s family’s Social Security numbers, religious affiliation, political party affiliation, voting history or biometric information shall be collected, tracked, housed with, reported to or shared with any entity, including the federal or state government. Additionally, RC 3301.948 prohibits providing student names and addresses to any multi-state consortium that offers summative assessments.
There are no policy updates associated with this topic, but districts should be on the lookout for forthcoming State Board guidelines and ensure local EMIS coordinators are aware of any reporting system changes.
Textbooks and instructional materials
HB 487 also added requirements dealing with the adoption of textbooks and instructional materials. RC 3313.21 specifies that the board of each school district is the sole authority in determining and selecting textbooks and reading lists, instructional materials and academic curriculum to be used in the schools under its control. This section also notes that boards may permit educators to create instructional materials, including textbooks, that are consistent with board-adopted curriculum for use in those educator’s classrooms.
RC 3313.212 goes on to require boards to provide an opportunity for parents to review the selection of textbooks and reading lists, instructional materials and academic curriculum used by schools in the district. In doing this, the new language requires boards to establish parental advisory committees or other methods for review, as are determined appropriate by the board, to meet the new requirement.
It is important to note there are no board policy requirements associated with the new parental review requirements. Districts are, however, required to provide parents the opportunity to review the items listed in RC 3313.212. General sample policy language has been updated to reflect this requirement, but boards may choose to keep this language separate from board policy.
Alternative educator licenses
HB 487 also added provisions requiring the State Board to issue alternative resident educator licenses to applicants who have a bachelor’s degree and have completed Montessori training. RC 3319.261 requires this issuance to applicants who meet the following conditions:
• holds a bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution of higher education;
• has successfully completed one of the following:
1. graduation from an American Montessori Society-affiliated teacher education program;
2. receipt of a certificate from the Association Montessori Internationale.
• is employed in a school that operates a program using the Montessori method endorsed by the American Montessori Society or the Association Montessori Internationale as its primary method of instruction.
In addition to these requirements, the criteria for alternative educator licenses in RC 3319.26 also must be met. There is no board policy language associated with these changes.
House Bill 483 changes
by Megan Greulich, policy consultant
Dropout recovery
House Bill (HB) 483 adds language allowing individuals between the ages of 22 and 29 who have not earned a high school diploma or equivalent certificate to enroll for up to two years in a community school, school district, JVSD or community college dropout prevention and recovery program. The language specifies that students participating in these programs are not to be assigned to classes or settings with students younger than 18.
The State Board of Education is required to adopt standards for administering these programs by Dec. 31. The standards must include data collection, reporting and certification of enrollment in the programs; measurement of academic performance of those enrolled in the programs; and standards for competency-based instructional programs. Enrollment for this program in fiscal year 2015 is limited to 1,000 individuals on a full-time equivalency basis as determined by the Ohio Department of Education. There are no necessary board policy language changes associated with the new program.
Revenue from sale of real property
House Bill (HB) 59 in 2013 added requirements for handling revenue from sales of real property. At that time, Ohio Revised Code (RC) Section 5705.10(H) was revised to require boards to use proceeds from real property disposed under RC 3313.41 to first settle any debts incurred in relation to the disposed property. Once such debts were settled, excess funds could be paid into the district’s capital and maintenance fund and used only to pay for nonoperating capital expenses related to technology infrastructure and equipment to be used for instruction and assessments.
While this is still the case, HB 483 adds an additional purpose for the money. Boards now may place the money into a special fund for the construction or acquisition of permanent improvements. The new provision applies to proceeds received on or after Sept. 29, 2013. There are no policy changes associated with this new option, but the notes section of policy DN, School Properties Disposal, has been updated to reflect the change.
Released time for religious instruction
by Kenna S. Haycox, policy consultant
Current practice for released time for religious instruction in Ohio has been driven primarily by First Amendment case law and Ohio attorney general (OAG) Opinion 88-001. Released in 1988, OAG 88-001 advises that for districts implementing released-time programs, the religious instruction must take place off school premises, public school personnel must assume little or no responsibility for implementing the program, no public funds may be used for it and the program must be applied in a nondiscriminatory manner toward all faiths and religious persuasions. Several districts already have a released time for religious instruction policy in place based on case law and OAG 88-001. With this background in mind, let’s take a look at House Bill (HB) 171, which is effective Sept. 11.
HB 171 enacted Ohio Revised Code (RC) Section 3313.6022. Under this section, a board may adopt a policy authorizing a student to be excused from school to attend a course in religious instruction provided the following criteria are met:
• the student’s parent/guardian gives written consent;
• the sponsoring entity maintains attendance records and makes them available to the school district the student attends;
• transportation to and from the place of instruction, including transportation for students with disabilities, is the complete responsibility of the sponsoring entity, parent/guardian or the student;
• the sponsoring entity makes provisions for and assumes liability for the student;
• no public funds are expended and no public school personnel are involved in providing the religious instruction;
• the student assumes responsibility for any missed school work;
• when attending a released-time course in religious instruction, a student must not be considered absent from school;
• a student may not be released from a core curriculum subject course to attend a religious course.
Districts may choose to include policy language that authorizes high school students to earn up to two units of high school credit for completing a released-time religious instruction course. When determining whether to award this credit, the board must evaluate the course based solely on secular criteria. Under RC 3313.6022, secular criteria used to evaluate the course may include, but not be limited to:
• the number of hours of classroom instruction;
• a review of the course syllabus that reflects course requirements and materials used;
• the methods of assessment used in the course and the qualifications of the course instructor, which must be similar to the qualifications of other district teachers.
The decision to award credit must be neutral to, and not involve any test for, religious content or denominational affiliation. The criteria applied must be substantially the same criteria used to evaluate similar nonpublic high school courses in determining whether to award credit for such courses to a student transferring from a nonpublic high school to a public high school.
However, there must be no criteria requiring that released-time courses be completed only at a nonpublic school. While RC 3313.603 addressing graduation requirements was not updated to reflect this, the new code section states that high school credit awarded for released time for religious instruction may be substituted for the same amount of credit for electives required under RC 3313.603(C)(8).
HB 171 provides that a school district, board member or school district employee is not liable for damages in a civil action for injury arising during a student’s transportation to or from a place of instruction when private transportation is used under the released-time policy. The provision also does not limit, eliminate or reduce any other immunity or defense an individual may be entitled to by way of sovereign immunity or any other provision of state law or common law.
Policy implications and additional considerations
Policy JEFB, Released Time for Religious Instruction, has been updated to reflect the new law. If the district is considering granting credit for these courses, look closely at the secular criteria to be used and apply these criteria in a way that does not have any religious test and remains neutral.
It is wise to work with board counsel as the board considers adopting a policy (if one is not already in place) on released time or choosing to allow credit. If a policy is in place, it should be revised to reflect the new requirements, including parental permission. For more information on related case law and the OAG opinion, review the comment section of the Legislative Service Commission summary document available here.
Uniform depository act
by Kenna S. Haycox, policy consultant
Senate Bill (SB) 287 made several changes to Ohio’s depository laws in a move meant to modernize the requirements. A joint communication recently released by OSBA, the Ohio Association of School Business Officials and the Buckeye Association of School Administrators provides a summary of these changes. This information can be viewed here.
Policy implications
No updates are needed to policy DFA, Revenues from Investments. The notes section has been updated to reflect some of these changes. It is important to check locally developed policies on this topic to see if any changes are necessary due to unique language included at the local level.
Sample policies included with this issue
Note: Policies and/or regulations marked with an * are required. Check to confirm that the district has a policy and/or regulation.
Revised polices/regulations (add new language shown in bold type and delete language in strike-through type)
Revised
*AFC-1 (Also GCN-1), Evaluation of Professional Staff (Ohio Teacher Evaluation System)
*EB, Safety Program
EBC, Emergency Management and Safety Plans
EBC-R, Emergency Management and Safety Plans
*EFF, Food Sale Standards
*GCN-1 (Also AFC-1), Evaluation of Professional Staff (Ohio Teacher Evaluation System)
IGAD, Career-Technical Education
*IGD, Cocurricular and Extracurricular Activities
*IGDJ, Interscholastic Athletics
*IGDK, Interscholastic Extracurricular Eligibility
*IIA, Instructional Materials
*IIAA, Textbook Selection and Adoption
*IKF, Graduation Requirements
IKF-R, Graduation Requirements (Opt Out)
IKF-E, Graduation Requirements (Opt Out Informed Consent Agreement)
JEFB, Released Time for Religious Instruction
*JHCD, Administering Medicines to Students (Version 1)
*JHCD-R-1, Administering Medicines to Students (General Regulation)
Other
*DFA, Revenues from Investments
DN, School Properties Disposal
*GCBB, Professional Staff Supplemental Contracts
GDBB, Support Staff Pupil Activity Contracts
*IF, Curriculum Development
*IFD, Curriculum Adoption
*IGBEA, Reading Skills Assessments and Intervention (Third Grade Reading Guarantee)
*IGBEA-R, Reading Skills Assessments and Intervention (Third Grade Reading Guarantee)
*JHCD-R-2, Administering Medicines to Students (Use of Asthma Inhalers)
*JHCD-R-3, Administering Medicines to Students (Use of Epinephrine Autoinjectors)
JK, Employment of Students