ennisbritton.com CINCINNATI • COLUMBUS • CLEVELAND
SCHOOL LAW REVIEW Can Parents Opt-out of District Curriculum or Instructional Materials?
Table of Contents
December 2021 Can Parents Opt-out Of District 1 Curriculum or Instructional Materials? Parents Not Entitled to IEE at Public Expense
2
HB 126 Heads to Senate
3
OHS Update Concerning Universal Masking and Vaccines
4
On the Docket
5
About Us
6
Cincinnati 1714 West Galbraith Rd Cincinnati, OH 45239 (513) 421-2540 Columbus 300 Marconi Blvd, Suite 308 Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 705-1333 Cleveland 5000 Lombardo Center, Suite 120 Cleveland, OH 44131 (246) 487-6672
Many districts have seen an increase in parental complaints about the curriculum and programs in Ohio’s public schools. This is a result of the national debate about critical race theory and a belief that it is being taught in public schools. Some parents have submitted opt-out forms to schools that state they do not consent to their child’s participation in any instruction or discussion of racially divisive topics or social-emotional learning programs. Must Ohio schools honor these opt-outs? Although the State of Ohio has a large say over the academic standards in grades kindergarten through twelve, R.C. 3313.60 requires each board of education to adopt a curriculum for all schools under its control. Provided that boards of education satisfy state academic standards and requirements, courts have granted boards of education broad authority to determine the curriculum taught in school and the instructional methods and materials that are utilized. Generally, parents do not get to pick and choose the required courses or curriculum their children must take or satisfy in Ohio public schools. Such an option would likely be unworkable for districts. Thus, parents generally cannot opt their children out of required courses or curriculum. Ohio law does provide parents with the ability to opt their children out of some items in the curriculum, including surveys, personal safety and assault prevention in grades kindergarten through six, suicide awareness and prevention and safety training and violence prevention in grades six through twelve, instruction in social inclusion, venereal disease education, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Additionally, R.C. 3313.60(G) grants parents the right to promptly examine, with respect to their own child, any survey administered to their child; any textbook, workbook, software, video, or other instructional material used by the district in connection with the instruction of their child; any completed and graded test taken or survey filled out by their child; and copies of statewide academic standards and each model curriculum that is developed by the state board of education. As for textbooks and library books, Ohio law and the courts generally leave it to the discretion of each board of education to select them. However, as for their removal, First Amendment considerations are necessary before books are removed because courts generally hold that they cannot be removed on
Ennis Britton December 2021
School Law Review
/1
ennisbritton.com CINCINNATI • COLUMBUS • CLEVELAND
the grounds thatthey are found to be offensive to a board of education or the board of education dislikes theirideas. It is permissible to remove books for a variety of other reasons, including because of their poor condition and a lack of shelf space. What this Means for Your District In general, opt-outforms need not be honored unless a parent is opting out of one of the items in the curriculum that the law gives them the authority to opt-outof. As complaints about the curriculum, textbooks,and library books are made, districts are advised to consult and follow board policies that give parents the right to complain about the curriculum or instructional materials. In addition, districts should consult with legal counsel over First Amendment concerns before removing books as a result of complaints or a general dislike for their ideas.
SPECIAL EDUCATION SPOTLIGHT Court Rules Parents Not Entitled to IEE at Public Expense A Pennsylvania district court found that parents of a student who had suffered three concussions were not entitled to an independent education evaluation (IEE) at public expense because they disagreed with the evaluation team’s IDEA classification. The parents of a gifted high school student originally requested an evaluation in 2016. The district did not find the student eligible under IDEA but instead created a 504 plan for occupational therapy (OT) services. The next year, the parents again requested an evaluation, but placed conditions of the types of testing the district could conduct. When the evaluation was completed, the district found the student eligible with an autism classification. The parents disagreed with the classification and the district offered on three separate occasions to conduct a reevaluation to consider their concerns, which they refused each time. Nearly two years later the parents requested an IEE since the district did not use a traumatic brain injury (TBI) as the student’s disability category. It is noteworthy that the TBI was not medically diagnosed but was assumed by parents as a result of the three concussions suffered by the student a year earlier. In declining the parent’s request for an IEE, the district filed due process to defend its evaluation. The state hearing officer ruled infavor of the district and the parents appealed. Upon review, the federal court found that since the district conducted the evaluation based upon an area of suspected disability, and since there was no information presented to the district team to cause them to suspect TBI, the evaluation conducted by the district was justified. The court noted that an evaluation should be tailored to the specific areas in which a student is struggling but need not be designed to identify and diagnose every possible disability. Ennis Britton December 2021
School Law Review
/2
ennisbritton.com CINCINNATI • COLUMBUS • CLEVELAND
What this Means for Your District The Pennsylvania court reiterated that a parent can request an IEE up to the time for the reevaluation. However, in looking at the remedies for the parents, the court found that since a new evaluation was due, the IEE request was moot. More importantly, schools should not feel compelled to change the disability classification of a student due to parent demand. Any such change must be based first upon suspicion of a disability and then on the assessment conducted by the district.
Revised HB 126 Under Consideration by Senate We previously wrote about HB 126, which sought to impose additional hurdles on school districts when challenging property valuations. As passed by the House, this bill would require a school board to authorize each valuation complaint or counter-complaint at a board meeting before they can file a complaint or counter-complaint with the county board of revision. It also requires the school board to notify the property owner of the challenge 14-days in advance of the board meeting. These onerous steps make it difficult to meet the deadlines for filing complaints and counter-complaints and appear to attempt to politicize the process by providing advance notification of coming complaints to property owners. In November, this bill received two hearings in the Senate. An amendment was even floated that would have completely eliminated the right of school districts to participate in the board of revision process. Under that amendment, not only would school districts be prohibited from filing complaints to increase valuations, but they would also have no right to file a counter-complaint to contest valuation reductions being sought by property owners. Although that amendment was never formally introduced, the Senate continued with proponent and opponent testimony concerning HB 126 as passed by the House. OASBO, BASA and OSBA have been working with school districts to oppose this legislation. With little notice, the Senate Ways and Means Committee adopted a revised bill on December 7, 2021. The revised bill prohibits school districts from filing original complaints to challenge the values assigned by county auditors. Although it permits districts to continue filing counter-complaints to challenge reduction requests sought by property owners, the revised bill requires that boards of education adopt separate resolutions for each counter-complaint. In addition, it prohibits districts from appealing decisions of county boards of revision. The revised bill out of the Ways and Means Committee will now proceed to consideration by the full Senate. If passed by the Senate, the bill will head back to the House for re-consideration. We will continue to update our clients as this bill progresses through the Senate. In the meantime, administrators are encouraged to contact their legislators to voice their positions on this bill.
Ennis Britton December 2021
School Law Review
/3
ennisbritton.com CINCINNATI • COLUMBUS • CLEVELAND
OHS Provides Update Concerning Universal Masking and Vaccines The Director of the Office of Head Start (OHS), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), recently shared a letter with the Head Start community an update that will revise the Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS) to include additional health and safety requirements. On November 10, 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated its COVID-19 Guidance for Operating Early Childhood Education (ECE) and Child Care Programs. The CDC stressed that vaccination is currently the leading public health prevention strategy to end the COVID-19 pandemic, and promoting vaccination among all eligible individuals can help ECE programs protect staff and children in their care, as well as their families. It acknowledges that most ECE programs serve children in an age group that is not yet eligible for vaccination and emphasizes using multiple prevention strategies together to protect both children and adults in ECE care. Consistent with this messaging, HSPPS now recommends universal indoor masking in ECE programs for everyone ages two and older. The standards will also require vaccination against COVID-19 for all staff, contractors, and volunteers working with children be fully vaccinated (two doses for Pfizer or Moderna and one dose of Janssen) by January 31, 2022. Anyone granted a vaccine exemption will be required to undergo weekly testing. As part of President Biden’s Path Out of the Pandemic, an interim final rule with comment (IFC) was published on November 30, 2021. With the release of the new HSPPS, the Office of Head Start hosted a webinar outlining these new requirements and published Universal Masking and COVID-19 Vaccine Requirements FAQs. Both the webinar and the FAQ were released on November 29th, and the webinar is available on demand through the OHS website. Since these new requirements will be a federal mandate, districts with head start programs may wish to begin informing staff and/or parents of the projected procedures.
Ennis Britton December 2021
School Law Review
/4
ennisbritton.com CINCINNATI • COLUMBUS • CLEVELAND
ON THE DOCKET Upcoming Presentations and Events December 7 – Legal Update – Southern Ohio ESC – William L. Deters and Ryan LaFlamme December 9 – Superintendent’s Update – Butler County ESC – Gary Stedronsky December 16 – Legal Update – Clermont County ESC – Hollie Reedy December 17 – Legal Update – Brown County ESC – Pamela Leist
Administrator’s Academy Series (Register Now!) December 9, 2021 – Treasurer’s Clinic February 4, 2022 – Human Resources April 7, 2022 – Special Education July 21, 2022 – Legal Update
Transportation Webinar: Entry Level Driver Training (ELDT) What do you know about ELDT and is your district prepared? Effective February 7, 2022, all CDL license candidates will have to complete the new federal Entry Level Driver Training (ELDT) with a registered provider. The new requirements include theory and behind-the-wheel training and demonstrated proficiency in a federally-mandated curriculum before they are eligible to take their state CDL test. Whether Ohio's pre-service training provided by ODE will be granted an exemption from the federal curriculum requirements likely will not be known until January. Please join Ennis Britton attorney Hollie Reedy and special guest Pete Japikse on December 15, 2021 to raise your awareness about the upcoming federal ELDT requirements and the current exemption request Ohio has submitted to FMCSA. In this one hour complimentary webinar we'll help you understand: • What ELDT will require and Ohio's request for an exemption; • The effects on driver candidates and schools whether the exemption is granted or denied; • Positioning your driver candidates to ensure the new requirement does not create delays in obtaining their license endorsement; • And other ways to ensure your district is not affected by the bus driver shortage as a result of these changes. December 15, 2021 • 10 - 11 a.m. Complimentary Zoom Webinar
Ennis Britton December 2021
Email hreichle@ennisbritton.com to register.
School Law Review
/5
ennisbritton.com CINCINNATI • COLUMBUS • CLEVELAND
ABOUT US Our Practice Ennis Britton has assembled a team of attorneys whose collective experience provides solutions for a variety of issues that school districts may encounter. From sensitive labor negotiations to complex real estate transactions, our legal experts offer the resources to ensure you remain compliant. We provide full legal representation for Ohio schools including: • Labor & Employment Law
• Construction & Real Estate
• Special Education
• Student Education & Discipline
• Workers’ Compensation
• School Finance
John Britton jbritton@ennisbritton.com
Robert J. McBride rmcbride@ennisbritton.com
Gary T. Stedronsky gstedronsky@ennisbritton.com
William M. Deters II wmdeters@ennisbritton.com
C. Bronston McCord III cbmccord@ennisbritton.com
Erin Wessendorf-Wortman ewwortman@ennisbritton.com
J. Michael Fischer jmfischer@ennisbritton.com
Jeremy J. Neff jneff@ennisbritton.com
Kyle Wheeler kwheeler@ennisbritton.com
Ryan M. LaFlamme rlafalmme@ennisbritton.com
Hollie Reedy hreedy@ennisbritton.com
Pamela A. Leist pleist@ennisbritton.com
Giselle Spencer gspencer@ennisbritton.com
• Board Policy & Representation
Ennis Britton December 2021
School Law Review
/6