ODE Provides Guidance on Educator Evaluations for 2020-2021 School Year

House Bill 404 granted school districts flexibility around educator evaluations for the 2020-2021 school year.  Specifically, a school district board of education may elect not to conduct an evaluation of a teacher, school counselor, administrator, or superintendent for the 2020-2021 school year if the district board determines that it would be impossible or impracticable to do so.  ODE has issued FAQs that provide additional information about these changes.

ODE clarified that a district can make a determination on a case-by-case basis on whether to evaluate a particular educator or whether to obtain an exemption.  Yet ODE reinforced that school districts should collaborate with their collective bargaining units to determine whether to complete evaluations, including whether to complete evaluations for certain educators while foregoing others.  For example, a district may decide to complete only evaluations for educators who are eligible for continuing contract, or to complete only evaluations that were in progress and had reached a certain point in the process.  Please note, unlike last year and the flexibility provided by House Bill 197, House Bill 404 did not alter evaluation deadlines.  For instance, evaluation deadlines for teachers remain May 1 to complete the teacher evaluation and May 10 to provide to the teacher a written report of the results.

For educators the district determines not to evaluate, the “COVID-19” option must be selected under the “Exemption” tab within eTPES and OhioES.  ODE has clarified that evaluations must either be completed or closed with an exemption.  ETPES and OhioES will remain open until June 15, 2021, to enter and finalize evaluation data. 

When an exemption is selected, any evaluation evidence already collected for the 2020-2021 cannot be used for evaluation purposes.  Yet ODE did state that such evidence can “continue to be used for educator self-reflection” and for Professional Growth Plans or Improvement Plans for the 2021-2022 school year.

For districts utilizing OTES 1.0, ODE provided a chart to show the impact of districts’ decisions regarding evaluations this school year. This includes that for teachers on the less frequent evaluation cycle (skilled and accomplished) who have completed evaluations in 2020-2021, ODE confirmed that such teachers remain at the same point in the evaluation cycle and retain the same evaluation rating for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years as for the 2019-2020 school year.

Under OTES 2.0, ODE also provided a chart to show evaluation decision impact. That includes that teachers on the less frequent evaluation cycle who have a completed evaluation in 2020-2021 may move ahead in the evaluation cycle, again, only under OTES 2.0. ODE gave the following example: under OTES 2.0, a teacher with an Accomplished rating in year 2 of the less frequent evaluation cycle who has a completed evaluation in 2020-2021 would move ahead to Accomplished year 3 in 2021-2022.

It is important to keep in mind that districts that chose to delay implementation of OTES 2.0 this school year are required to implement OTES 2.0 in the 2021-2022 school year unless the district is operating under a collective bargaining agreement entered into prior to November 2, 2018.  If so, those districts are required to implement OTES 2.0 upon expiration of the collective bargaining agreement entered into prior to November 2, 2018.  

Contact your legal counsel for questions and concerns about making decisions on how to handle evaluations for the 2020-2021 school year.

Federal Coronavirus Relief Law Does Not Mandate Extension of FFCRA Paid Leave Entitlements

This week the $900 billion federal coronavirus relief bill was signed into law, and among its voluminous provisions is new language addressing the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA).

Starting January 1, 2021, employers, including school districts, are no longer required to provide up to 80 hours of emergency paid sick leave, or up to 12 weeks of leave for childcare issues (with the first two weeks being unpaid leave or emergency paid sick leave, and the next 10 weeks being partially paid expanded family and medical leave). However, under the new law, private employers that choose to allow employees to take leave under the FFCRA framework will continue to be eligible for a payroll tax credit from January 1 through March 31, 2021. However, public employers (including schools) have not been and continue to be ineligible for the tax credit.

As a result, public school districts’ FFCRA mandate expires December 31, 2020. Schools should expect questions from employees and labor unions regarding this issue, and should consider planning now regarding how COVID-19-related leaves will be handled.

EEOC Provides Guidance on Mandatory Vaccination for Employees

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently published guidance confirming that employers can implement and enforce a policy requiring employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, with certain exceptions to that general rule.

Specifically, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers must attempt to accommodate employees who decline the vaccine due to a disability. Furthermore, for employees who decline the vaccine due to sincerely held religious beliefs, employers likewise must attempt to accommodate those employees, unless doing so would present an undue hardship.  Further, based on the facts and circumstances of each case, if the employer determines an unvaccinated person physically present at work poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others, and that threat cannot be appropriately addressed through reasonable accommodations, then the employer may exclude the employee from being physically present at work. However, even under those circumstances, the employer must then determine whether other reasonable accommodations (e.g., remote work) can be provided.

Employees can be asked to provide proof of receiving the vaccine (for example, from his/her own medical provider), but employers must be careful to avoid running afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) in doing so, and should carefully tailor and consider seeking legal guidance regarding any questions asked of employees and the information required to show proof.

Given it is anticipated that school staff in Ohio will have priority access to the vaccine, schools should consider starting to plan now for whether vaccination will be mandatory. In addition, local issues must be taken into consideration for each individual district’s plans, and any existing board policies and/or applicable labor contract provisions should be considered.

Ohio House Bill 404 Extends Virtual Meetings Authority, Addresses Educator Evaluations and More

On November 24, 2020, Governor DeWine signed House Bill 404 to extend many of the provisions included in House Bill 197 that went into effect last spring to provide relief to Ohio school districts during the pandemic.  House Bill 404 is considered emergency legislation and takes effect immediately. 

The following is a summary of the HB 404 provisions that apply to school districts. 

Virtual Board Meetings until July 1, 2021

In accordance with HB 404, a public school district board of education may hold and attend meetings and may conduct and attend hearings by means of teleconference, video conference, or any other similar electronic technology until July 1, 2021.  More information regarding the requirements for virtual board meeting is included in our March 26, 2020 client alert and can be found here.

Educator Evaluations

HB 404 allows (but does not require) a board of education to elect not to conduct evaluations of district employees, including teachers, school counselors, administrators, or a superintendent for the 2020-2021 school year, if an evaluation has not been completed before November 24, 2020, should the district board determine it would be impossible or impracticable to do so. If a district board elects not to evaluate an employee for the 2020-2021 school year, the employee will be considered not to have had evaluation procedures complied with and shall not be penalized for the purpose of reemployment. As such, districts should consider consulting with legal counsel before deciding to waive evaluations.

HB 404 also states that the district board may collaborate with any bargaining organization representing employees of the district in determining whether to complete evaluations for the 2020-2021 school year. The bill does not prevent a district board from using an evaluation completed prior to November 24, 2020 in employment decisions.

For the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years, districts are prohibited from using value-added progress dimension, any other high-quality student data, any other metric used to evaluate positive student outcomes, or any other student academic growth data to measure student learning attributable to a teacher, principal or school counselor while conducting performance evaluations.  Rather a district board may use only the other evaluation factors and components to conduct a teacher’s, principal’s, or school counselor’s performance evaluation.  However, the district is not prohibited from considering as part of the evaluation how a teacher, principal, or school counselor collects, analyzes, and uses student data, including student academic growth data or positive student outcomes data to adapt instruction to meet student needs or improve performance.

HB 404 further specifies that any teacher who did not have a student academic growth measure as part of the teacher's evaluation for the 2019-2020 or 2020-2021 school years shall remain at the same point in the teacher's evaluation cycle, and shall retain the same evaluation rating, for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years as for the 2019-2020 school year. We expect further guidance from ODE on this and other points related to evaluations.

HB 404 further extends the authority for a school district that did not participate in the teacher evaluation pilot program established for the 2019-2020 school year to continue evaluating teachers on two-year or three-year evaluation cycles, even if the district completes an evaluation for those teachers in the 2020-2021 school year without using a student growth measure.

State Assessments and Health Screening

For the 2020-2021 school year only, a district or school shall not be penalized for failing to administer the third-grade English language arts assessment, diagnostic assessments, and/or the Kindergarten Readiness assessment in the fall of the 2002-2021 school year to an qualifying student.  However, a district or school may elect to administer one of the above-referenced assessments.

In addition, no public school shall be penalized for failing to conduct health screenings of a kindergarten or first grade student prior to November 1, 2020 if that student was a qualifying student prior to that date, and schools may forego health screenings for the 2020-2021 school year until they can be conducted safely for a qualifying student. However, upon receiving a request of the parent, guardian, or custodian for a health screening for a qualifying student, the school shall conduct such screening.

To be considered a qualifying student, one or more of the following must apply:

1.     The student is being quarantined.

2.     The student, or a member of the student’s family, is medically compromised and the student cannot attend school, or another physical location outside of the home, for testing.

3.     The student resides in a geographic area that is subject to an order issued by the Governor, the Department of Health, or the board of health of a city or general health district that requires all persons on that area to remain in their residences.

4.     The student is receiving instruction primarily through a remote learning model up through the deadline for the prescribed assessments, and the assessments cannot be administered remotely.

State-Issued Licenses Set to Expire On or Before April 1, 2021 Extended Until July 1, 2021

HB 404 includes a general provision regarding licenses and certifications issued by state agencies, and how such licenses will be addressed during the extended period of emergency.  That would include, for example, teaching licenses and other licenses/certifications issued by the Ohio Department of Education.  HB 404 extends current law deadlines for licenses/certifications set to expire on or before April 1, 2021 to remain valid until July 1, 2021, unless it is revoked, suspended, or otherwise subject to discipline or limitation under the applicable law for reasons other than delaying taking action to maintain the validity of the license in accordance with the deadline extension.

College Credit Plus

For the 2020-2021, and 2021-2022 school years only, the Chancellor of Higher Education, in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction, may waive, extend, suspend, or modify requirements of the College Credit Plus program if the Chancellor, in consultation with the Superintendent, determines the waiver, extension, suspension, or modification is necessary in response to COVID-19.

Seamless Summer Food Program Regulation Exemption Until July 1, 2021

HB 404 extends the Director of Agriculture’s temporary authority to exempt a school from regulation as a food processing establishing until July 1, 2021, if the school: (1) has been issued a food service operation license; or (2) is transporting food only for purposes of the Seamless Summer Option Program or the Summer Food Service Program administer by the U.S.D.A.

 

U.S. Department of Labor Revises Regulations Implementing the FFCRA

On September 11, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued updated regulations related to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) in response to a decision from a federal court in New York that vacated certain provisions of the DOL’s regulations from April 2020.  These regulations implement the Expanded Family and Medical Leave Expansion Action (EPFMEA) and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA).

The regulations clarified specific aspects of the law in a few important ways that are relevant to school districts.

First, the regulations confirmed that an employee can only take EPFMEA and EPSLA “if the employee has work from which to take leave.”  This applies to all FFCRA-qualifying reasons for leave.  Accordingly, if an employer closes a worksite, the employee cannot take leave even if the employee has a qualifying reason.

The regulations also reaffirmed that it is permissible to take EPFMEA or EPSLA leave intermittently, but only with employer consent.  While the DOL clarified the general rule for intermittent leave, it also effectively redefined leave taken when an employee’s child’s school is on a hybrid schedule.  The DOL stated that when an employee’s child’s school offers in-person instruction on certain days each week and remote instruction on other days, the employee can take leave on the days of remote instruction without obtaining employer consent.  The DOL determined that each day the school only offers remote instruction is a separate qualifying reason for leave under the FFCRA (i.e., the school closes and reopens each time it goes from remote back to in-person).  Therefore, such leave is not taken “intermittently” (thus requiring employer consent) but is instead taken for separate (although repeating) qualifying reasons.  Further, if in-person instruction is available to an employee’s child, but the employee chooses not to send his or her child, the employee does not qualify for FFCRA leave.

The DOL also clarified that the documentation demonstrating that an employee qualifies for leave must be given to the employer “as soon as practicable” rather than “prior to” taking the leave, as was stated in the prior regulations.

ODE Issues Key Guidance on Teacher Assignment and Licensure Flexibility for 2020-2021 School Year

The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) has recently provided guidance on licensure flexibility and requirements for the 2020-2021 school year. 

House Bill 197 granted flexibility on the timelines for educators to renew their credentials.  For educators whose credentials were set to expire on July 1, 2020, the period for those educators to complete their renewal requirements and renew their licenses has been extended to December 1, 2020.  House Bill 197 also granted ODE authority to issue a one-time, one-year temporary license for the 2020-2021 school year to applicants who meet all other qualifications for licensure but have been unable to complete their initial licensure examinations. The Office of Educator Licensure is currently accepting applications for the one-year temporary license and will accept such applications until December 1, 2020.  All one-year temporary licenses will be effective for the 2020-2021 school year only and are non-renewable. 

House Bill 164 also created flexibility for schools related to licensed educators.  As a reminder, for the 2020-2021 school year only, a superintendent may employ or assign an educator to teach a subject area or grade level for which the person is not licensed as long as it is within two grade levels of the person’s licensure grade band. To qualify, an educator must hold a professional or resident educator teaching license and have at least three years of teaching experience.  Importantly, this flexibility does not apply to assignments in special education or to employing or assigning educational aides.

ODE has also provided guidance on how to report a staff member as the teacher of record for a course in EMIS.  Typically, the staff member listed on the Staff Course record type must be reported in EMIS with the Teacher (230) position code. Yet for the 2020-2021 school year only, EMIS also will accept staff with the Full-time Substitute Teacher (225) position code as the staff member assigned to a course.  But importantly, any teacher reported with a 225 position code still must meet the same licensure criteria as a 230 position code staff member to pass the Teacher Licensure Course Status checks.

In response to extensive requests from educators and districts regarding licensure for remote instruction, ODE has clarified that the requirements for an educator to be properly certified or licensed are the same whether the instruction is being provided in person, virtually, or in a hybrid model. The educator still must be licensed to teach the subject area, grade level, and student population, or qualify for licensure flexibility under House Bill 164 (described above) to be properly certified or licensed.

ODE also identified the one important exception to the licensure requirement for computer-instructed courses.  A course is considered computer-instructed “when the software application or website used by the student is directly completing most of the tasks normally completed by the educator.”  For this exception to apply, the educator must not be providing direct instruction or direct assessment of the students enrolled in the course, but is, instead, serving the limited role of helping facilitate the students’ successful use of the software or website. For such computer-instructed courses, a staff member with certification or licensure as a teacher, counselor, principal, or superintendent will be considered properly certified or licensed to monitor the course, regardless of the grade level and subject areas of the credential or license. 

ODE Issues 2020-2021 School Year Guidance for Students with Disabilities

On August 7, 2020, ODE issued important guidance on special education for the 2020-2021 school year.  The four guidance documents (Students with Disabilities, Telehealth Guidance, Additional Considerations for Special Education, and Students with Disabilities Compendium of Resources) outline many significant changes and must be followed as your district develops its plan for the start of the school year.  Two of the documents – Students with Disabilities and Telehealth Guidance – were subsequently revised on August 14, 2020.

Two of the guidance documents (Students with Disabilities and Additional Considerations for Special Education) provide a list of questions school administrators should ask as they are addressing certain special education issues.  These questions should be comprehensively reviewed with your special education staff as they encounter these scenarios.  

At the outset, ODE reiterated that schools should continue to make a good-faith effort to provide specialized services to students with disabilities, and must consider the exact nature of the services provided on an individualized basis.  Yet ODE also confirmed that, while balancing the need to protect the health and safety of students who receive special education services, parents, and staff, districts must provide a FAPE.

ODE provided more specific guidance on the following areas:

ETR and IEP Meetings:

Regarding whether to conduct ETR and IEP meetings in-person or remotely, ODE stated that “the health, safety and wellness of students, parents and staff must be considered and drive decisions.”  More specifically, ODE stated that:

  • initial ETRs are to be completed within the typical 60-day timeline;

  • for IEP or ETR meetings held remotely, participation and required signatures can be documented by email attachment, standard mail, scanned signature, photograph of the signature or any other electronic means; and

  • for IEP or ETR meetings held in-person, they must be “held in a healthy and safe manner according to Ohio Department of Health and State of Ohio guidelines.”

IEP Revisions and Least Restrictive Environment:

When the guidance was initially issued on August 7, 2020, ODE indicated that if a student’s least restrictive environment (LRE) has changed due to remote learning, or a blend of remote and in-person learning, IEP teams must ensure this change is accurately reflected in the student’s IEP.  ODE has since walked back that directive in its most recent guidance that was re-issued late last week.  ODE clarified that a student’s LRE is determined by the IEP team and must be based on each student’s individual needs rather than based on a change in placement caused by a district-wide educational plan.  ODE advises districts to write into each student’s IEP the provisions that would be in place for each possible educational scenario (in-person learning, virtual learning, or hybrid learning) that are individual for each student’s needs.  Yet there is no longer a directive to amend the LRE for each student’s IEP if remote learning, or partial remote learning, is going to be implemented

New "Recovery Services", Compensatory Education, and ESY:

ODE recognized that the typical framework for determining whether compensatory education services should be provided does not fit the closure based on COVID-19.  Importantly, ODE noted that districts “did not fail to provide a FAPE because the district stopped implementing a student’s IEP; instead, the entire state moved to remote education without choice.”

Taking a cue from other states, ODE is now using the term “recovery services” to reflect the need of students to recover from any educational gaps in learning caused by the unexpected school-building closures.  If a student with a disability shows less than expected skills acquisition upon re-entry to school after the closure period, recovery services in the form of additional services and supports would be provided to resume learning based on each student’s current levels of performance. ODE clarifies that recovery services are not about a district’s intentional failure to provide services but are instead a systemic approach to help students recover from unavoidable pandemic-related service delivery interruptions.  Each IEP team must make an individual determination of whether a student needs recovery services, and, if so, what those services should be.  Recovery services can be provided throughout the school year and do not need to be completed during the first few weeks of the school year.  Additionally and importantly, ODE noted that, unlike compensatory education, recovery services do not need to replace missed services during the closure period minute for minute.  Recovery services are about helping students recover from educational gaps, and are tailored for that more general purpose.

ODE also states that when recovery services are provided, it should be noted in the “Other Information” section of the IEP and clarify that such services are being provided due to the coronavirus-related ordered school building closure period.  ODE also suggests stating that recovery services are not extended school year (ESY) services.  

ODE also notes that there are situations where compensatory education could be warranted.  Those situations would be when the district failed to provide the services of the student’s IEP during the closure (such as refusing to provide services or failing to provide special education services when regular education students received continued instruction).  ODE also reiterated when ESY services should be offered (to prevent or slow severe skill regression during extended periods when school is not in session) and effectively stated that ESY should not be used for skill recovery based on the school closures. 

Specially Designed Instruction:

Regarding specially designed instruction, ODE reiterated that even when schools are providing virtual or partially virtual instruction, specially designed instruction must continue to be provided as written in the student’s IEPs.  The IEP should address the specialized instructional needs of each student in the various possible educational scenarios (in-person learning, virtual instruction, or hybrid model).

Transportation:

ODE said that students who have transportation needs written in their IEPs must continue to receive specialized transportation, as appropriate.  

Telehealth:

ODE previously stated that if the IEP team determines that a student’s services will be delivered via telehealth, the IEP should be amended to reflect this.  But ODE has since partially revised this guidance as well.  While ODE does indicate that if the IEP does not state that services will be provided via telehealth, the IEP should be amended to note this, ODE clarified that this could be accomplished through the IEP amendment process or by convening the IEP team.  Yet importantly, ODE also stated that if a district’s overall plan is to provide education through a virtual or partially virtual plan, it is not necessary to amend the IEP to reflect that services are being provided via telehealth.  However, the district should document in a PR-01 that parents were informed that services will be provided via telehealth.

ODE also notes that there are no federal or state requirements for additional parental consent is needed to provide services via telehealth (some professional licensure boards do require parental consent so providers should check with their licensure boards).  ODE also clarified that IEP related services delivered via telehealth count as IEP minutes delivered; accordingly, providers should keep detailed records of student participation including dates of services, number of minutes delivered, and a description of the services.  Lastly, ODE stated that, while districts should make every effort to use HIPAA-compliant platforms (and provided a list of known compliant platforms), ODE noted that the Office of Civil Rights temporarily allowed the use of applications that are not fully HIPAA-compliant, such as FaceTime, Google Hangouts, Skype, and Facebook Messenger video chat. 

Districts should review this important guidance and discuss with their legal counsel regarding what steps need to be taken to ensure compliance.

ODE Issues Guidance on Educator Evaluations for the 2020-2021 School Year

As districts continue to strategize around the reopening of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic, ODE issued guidance to help educators plan for 2020-2021 evaluations and implementation of OTES 2.0, given the temporary changes to teacher and principal evaluations included in both House Bill 197 and House Bill 164 (the most recent COVID-19 legislation signed by the Governor on June 19, 2020).  These changes grant districts flexibility around evaluations for the 2020-2021 school year.

The discretion granted to school districts in this era of COVID-19 and certain ODE-approved deadline extensions have caused some confusion around the requirements for adoption and implementation of OTES 2.0; however, ODE addressed this issue in its guidance.  On July 16, 2020, ODE made clear that school districts must adopt an OTES 2.0 policy no later than September 1, 2020, even if the district determined to delay implementation until the 2021-2022 school year

The following is a summary of H.B. 164 provisions related to educator evaluations:  

Teacher and principal evaluations for 2020-2021 school year

  • The bill prohibits a school district from using value-added progress dimension data, any other high-quality student data, or any other student academic growth data to measure student learning attributable to a teacher or principal while conducting evaluations for the 2020-2021 school year.

  • It instead requires that a school district use the other factors and components prescribed under continuing law to conduct evaluations. That includes formal and informal observations, and other performance rubric data.

  • The bill cannot be construed as prohibiting a district from considering as part of an evaluation how a teacher or principal collects, analyzes, and uses student data, including student academic growth data, to adapt instruction to meet individual student needs or to improve the teacher’s or principal’s practice.

ODE also issued a frequently asked questions section that applies to all educators, including teachers, counselors and administrators, which can be found here

It is important to note that ODE’s guidance and FAQ cannot be construed as supplanting existing collective bargaining agreement language, Ohio Revised Code, or House Bills 197 or 164, which may result in districts needing to execute an MOU(s) with their respective unions.

The FAQ includes, among other things, that to ensure teacher and principal evaluations do not include student academic growth data to measure student learning, for districts using OTES 1.0 for the 2020-2021 school year, evaluators should use only the teacher and principal performance evaluation rubrics for OPES and OTES 1.0.  For districts implementing OTES 2.0 for the upcoming school year, evaluators should NOT include the “Evidence of Student Learning” component on the teacher performance evaluation rubric for OTES 2.0.

The FAQ also includes information relevant to evaluation cycles for the 2020-2021 school year if evaluations were not completed last year due to COVID-19, use of evaluation data collected during the 2019-2020 school year, the impact on 2020-2021 evaluations if an evaluation was completed last year without a student growth measure, and additional guidance for school districts implementing OTES 2.0 for the upcoming school year.

ODE Issues Key Guidance on Remote Learning Plans versus Blended Learning Declarations

As part of its Reset and Restart Guidance, the Ohio Department of Education issued last week a Remote Education Planning document, which works to clarify for school districts whether they need a remote learning plan (pursuant to recent legislation, Ohio House Bill 164), or a blended learning declaration (pursuant to continuing law, ORC 3302.41).  The remote learning plan option was included in Ohio House Bill 164 to allow for districts to provide fully virtual instruction during the 2020-2021 school year, and in doing so be deemed to have met the minimum hours of instruction required under Ohio law. This option is akin to what occurred during the end of the 2019-2020 school year, where minimum instructional hours were waived during the period of extended remote learning.

ODE’s guidance provides definitions for “remote learning” and “blended learning,” among other terms, along with a comparison document for the terms.  Remote learning occurs when the student and educator are separated by time and/or distance, and thus cannot meet in the traditional classroom setting.  Critically, remote learning can take place in digital form (e.g., online), or analog form (e.g., paper packets).  “Blended learning” is a more specific learning arrangement that includes a combination of school-based and online learning (not analog learning).

ODE further explains in its guidance that a remote learning plan is needed when: 1) remote learning is a regular and standard component of the instructional program for the whole district, or a certain building within the district; and 2) when remote learning is a component of learning for unplanned occurrences – for example, for temporarily closures to disinfect or for quarantine periods. 

A blended learning declaration, on the other hand, is needed when the district’s plan includes a combination of school-based learning and remote online learning for some or all students - for example, where high school grades are being instructed using a mix of in-person and remote learning.

Depending on the reopening plan, districts may submit a remote learning plan for some schools and a blended learning declaration of others.  However, there should be no overlap of plans.

ODE further provides examples of reopening plans, and whether a blended learning declaration or remote learning plan is required.  Districts should review these examples, as they are most helpful in determining which documents should be submitted to ODE.  No district should move forward with the 2020-2021 school year without giving due consideration to this issue of remote plans/blended learning declarations, to ensure that hours of remote and/or blended instruction count toward state minimums.

Remote learning plans must be submitted to ODE no later than August 21, 2020.  They must include the following:

  1. A description of how student instructional needs will be determined and documented;

  2. The method to be used for determining competency, granting credit and promoting students to a higher grade level;

  3. The school’s attendance requirements, including how the school will document participation in learning opportunities;

  4. A statement describing how student progress will be monitored;

  5. A description as to how equitable access to quality instruction will be ensured;

  6. A description of the professional development activities that will be offered to teachers.

A remote learning plan form is provided here, and a remote learning plan checklist is provided here.

Blended learning declarations must be submitted to ODE by November 1, 2020.  For districts with blended learning models, they must adopt policies and/or procedures that address each of the following issues:

  1. Means of personalization of student-centered learning models to meet the needs of each student;

  2. The evaluation and review of the quality of online curriculum delivered to students.

  3. Assessment of each participating student’s progress through the curriculum. Students shall be permitted to advance through each level of the curriculum based on demonstrated competency/mastery of the material. (ORC 3302.41(B)(3));

  4. The assignment of a sufficient number of teachers to ensure a student has an appropriate level of interaction to meet the student’s personal learning goals. Each participating student shall be assigned to at least one teacher of record. A school or classroom that implements blended learning cannot be required to have more than one teacher for every 125 students. (ORC 3302.41(B)(1));

  5. The method by which each participating student will have access to the digital learning tools necessary to access the online or digital content. (ORC 3302.41(B)(2));

  6. The means by which each school shall use a filtering device or install filtering software that protects against internet access to materials that are obscene or harmful to juveniles on each computer provided to or made available to students for instructional use. The school shall provide such device or software at no cost to any student who uses a device obtained from a source other than the school;

  7. The means by which the school will ensure that teachers have appropriate training in the pedagogy of the effective delivery of on-line or digital instruction. (ORC 3302.41(B)(5));

  8. A school is exempt from school year hourly requirements established in ORC 3313.48(A) to the extent that a school alters the hours that it is open for instruction in order to accommodate blended learning opportunities that apply to all students. (ORC 3302.14(B)(4)).

The ODE guidance also includes an FAQ section.  Among those FAQs is an explanation that, for districts that submitted a blended learning declaration prior to remote learning being an option under HB 164 or otherwise, such districts can revoke their blended learning declaration.  Directions for doing that are provided in the FAQs.

House Bill 164 Addresses Reopening of Schools in Light of COVID-19

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed Ohio House Bill 164 (H.B. 164) on Friday, June 19, 2020. The bill addresses certain religious rights of public school students, in addition to numerous provisions regarding the reopening of schools for the 2020-2021 school year in this era of COVID-19. A summary of key provisions of the bill are as follows:

Teacher and principal evaluations for 2020-2021 school year

  • The bill prohibits a school district from using value-added progress dimension data, any other high-quality student data, or any other student academic growth data to measure student learning attributable to a teacher or principal while conducting evaluations for the 2020-2021 school year.

  • It instead requires that a school district use the other factors and components prescribed under continuing law to conduct evaluations. That includes formal and informal observations, and other performance rubric data.

  • The bill cannot be construed as prohibiting a district from considering as part of an evaluation how a teacher or principal collects, analyzes, and uses student data, including student academic growth data, to adapt instruction to meet individual student needs or to improve the teacher’s or principal’s practice.

Teacher subject area or grade band assignment flexibility

  • The bill permits a superintendent to employ or reassign a licensed teacher to teach a subject area or grade level for which the teacher is not licensed for the 2020-2021 school year, as long as the teacher’s licensure grade band is within two grade levels of the grade to be taught, and the teacher has three or more years of teaching experience.

Online bus driver training

  • The bill requires ODE to develop an online training program to satisfy the classroom portion of pre-service and annual in-service training for school bus driver certification for the 2020-2021 school year.

Qualify for high school diploma using final course grades in lieu of end-of-course exam scores

  • The bill permits a student who was scheduled to take or re-take an end-of-course exam in the 2019-2020 school year, but did not do so because the exam was cancelled, to use the student’s final course grade in lieu of an exam score to satisfy conditions for a high school diploma. Any letter grade of “C” or higher shall be deemed equivalent to a competency score. A pass designation also shall be equivalent to a competency score.

  • ODE guidance on graduation in light of HB 164 is available here.

Third-grade reading guarantee

  • For the 2020-2021 school year only, the bill prohibits a school district or school from retaining in the third grade a student who does not attain a passing score on the fall administration of the third grade ELA achievement test, if a student demonstrates competency. Competency is determined by the principal and reading teacher, who must agree the student’s reading demonstrates the student is academically prepared to be promoted to fourth grade.

  • The bill prohibits ODE from reviewing and adjusting upward the promotion score for the third grade ELA assessment for the 2020-2021 school year, and, instead, requires the use of the 2019-2020 promotion score of 683 for the 2020-2021 school year.

  • HB 164 exempts a teacher assigned to provide intense remediation reading assistance to a student in the 2020-2021 school year under the Third-Grade Reading Guarantee from certain criteria otherwise required under continuing law regarding training, licensure, and evaluation criteria.

  • ODE guidance is available here.

Academic assessment records for home instructed students

  • The bill exempts parents of students receiving home instruction from the administrative rule requirement to submit an “academic assessment record” for the 2019-2020 school year to the student’s resident school district superintendent as a condition of allowing the student to continue receiving home instruction for the 2020-2021 school year.

Services to special needs students

  • The bill permits non-classroom personnel providing professional services to students with disabilities to provide services electronically or via telehealth communication for the balance of the 2019-2020 school year and the entirety of the 2020-2021 school year, now including school psychologists along with SLPs, OTs, PTs, counselors, social workers, and intervention specialists.

  • The bill also applies to telehealth services to students receiving services under the Autism Scholarship Program, Jon Peterson Special Needs Scholarship Program, or any student enrolled in a public or private school who was receiving these services prior to the 19-20 COVID-related school closure.

Remote learning

  • The bill permits public schools that have not otherwise been approved to use a “blended” learning model under continuing law for the 2020-2021 school year to adopt a plan to provide instruction using a “remote” learning model for the 2020-2021 school year.

  • For remote learning under HB 164, districts have until July 31, 2020 to submit remote learning plans to ODE, although it is not subject to ODE approval prior to implementation. However, the July 31 date has been extended by ODE to August 21, 2020. The plan will be on ODE’s web site and must include:

  1. A description of how student instructional needs will be determined and documented;

  2. The method to be used for determining competency, granting credit, and promoting students to a higher grade level;

  3. The school’s attendance requirements, including how the school will document participation in learning opportunities;

  4. A statement describing how student progress will be monitored;

  5. A description as to how equitable access to quality instruction will be ensured; and

  6. A description of the professional development activities that will be offered to teachers.

  • School districts submitting the above remote learning plan will be considered compliant (for the 2020-2021 year only) with minimum-hour requirements and funding eligibility criteria. Students served remotely may not exceed 1.0 full time equivalency for state funding purposes.

  • ODE’s remote learning resources are available here.

Storm shelters

  • The bill extends from September 15, 2020, to November 30, 2022, the existing moratorium regarding the construction of storm shelters in private and public school buildings.

Religious expression in schools

  • The bill requires public schools to give students who wish to meet for the purpose of religious expression the same access to school facilities given to secular student groups, without regard to the content of the expression.

  • The bill further prohibits public schools from rewarding or penalizing a student based on the religious content of the student’s homework, artwork, or other assignments.

Additional payment for school districts

  • The bill requires ODE to make an additional payment to each school district that receives, for FY 2020, a combined amount of foundation funding after state budget reductions and funding from the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act that is less than 94% of its foundation funding for FY 2020 as calculated before state budget reductions.

  • The bill specifies that the amount of this payment is equal to the difference between (1) 94% of the district’s foundation funding for FY 2020 as calculated before state budget reductions and (2) the combined amount of foundation funding after state budget reductions and funding from the federal CARES Act.

  • This provision would provide approximately $24 million in total GRF funding to be distributed to qualifying districts.

  • The bill requires ODE to make a payment, for FY 2020 and 2021, to each city, local, exempted village, or joint vocational school district with more than a 10% decrease in the taxable value of utility tangible personal property (TPP) subject to taxation that has at least one power plant located within its territory.

 

Major Changes Come to K-12 Schools Regarding Title IX Sexual Harassment

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a Final Rule regarding Title IX.  This Final Rule went through a significant period of public comment prior to being released, and goes into effect on August 14, 2020.  These changes focus on addressing complaints of sexual harassment in the educational setting.

For the first time, the Title IX regulations define “sexual harassment” and also outline the procedures schools (both post-secondary and K-12) must follow to address and respond to allegations of sexual harassment.

New Definition of “Sexual Harassment”

The Final Rule states that sexual harassment is conduct on the basis of sex that satisfies one or more of the following:

  1. An employee of the school conditioning a provision of an aid, benefit, or service of the school on an individual’s participation in unwelcome sexual conduct;

  2. Unwelcome conduct determined by a reasonable person to be so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the school’s education program or activity; or

  3. Meets federal definitions of “sexual assault”, “dating violence”, “domestic violence,” or “stalking”.

Breaking down the definition, the second element of the definition has been notably changed from prior OCR guidance.  Previously the behavior had to be severe, pervasive, or persistent and interfere with or limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from school services or activities.  Now, the definition states that the behavior must be severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person’s equal access to the school’s education program or activity.  Another notable change is that OCR now defines certain conduct that automatically meets the definition of “sexual harassment,” without having to analyze the conduct under the second element of the definition.  The first and third elements of the definition (quid pro quo sexual harassment from a school employee to a student and certain specific instances of assault, violence, or stalking based on the federal definitions) are presumed to be severe, pervasive, and objective offensive that they deny equal access to the school’s education program or activity. 

Title IX Coordinator

The Final Rule also clarifies that schools must have a “Title IX Coordinator” (and use that specific title).  While schools have always been required to designate an employee for Title IX compliance, the Final Rule requires that the Title IX Coordinator not only be designated to coordinate compliance with Title IX, but also authorized to do so.  This likely requires districts to review the Title IX Coordinator’s role to ensure he or she has sufficient authority to coordinate the district’s compliance with Title IX, particularly given the new standards and requirements.

When School Must Act - “Actual Knowledge” of Harassment

The next major change relates to when a school is required to act in response to sexual harassment allegations.  Under the Final Rule, a school is required to respond promptly and in a manner that is not deliberately indifferent when it has “actual knowledge” of the sexual harassment.  This is a change from OCR’s prior guidance in which a school had a responsibility to respond promptly and effectively if a school “knew or should have known” about sexual harassment.  Previously, the standard of notice was much lower (even if a school did not have actual knowledge, it could be liable if it should have known about the conduct) and it also required the school to respond “effectively” rather than “not deliberately indifferently” (a much lower standard), as the new Rule states. 

OCR outlined what constitutes “actual knowledge”: when notice of sexual harassment or allegations of sexual harassment are provided to:

  1. The school’s Title IX Coordinator;

  2. An official of the district who has authority to institute corrective measures on behalf of the district; or

  3. Any employee of an elementary or secondary school.

For K-12 institutions, the “actual knowledge” definition is met more easily based on the fact that notifying any employee of an elementary or secondary school constitutes actual knowledge by the school district.

Formal Complaint Process

While schools must respond as described above (promptly and not deliberately indifferently) when there is “actual knowledge” of sexual harassment, the Final Rules also outline the specific response required when a Formal Complaint is filed.  A Formal Complaint is specifically defined as either: (a) a document filed by a complainant (specifically defined now as the alleged victim of the harassment); or (b) a document signed by the Title IX Coordinator that alleges sexual harassment and requests that the district investigate.  Formal Complaints cannot be filed by third parties, although third parties can still report sexual harassment which could put the district on notice of the sexual harassment and be considered “actual knowledge.”

Whether the district is considered to have “actual knowledge” of the harassment or a Formal Complaint is filed, the Final Rules outline the required initial response.  The Title IX Coordinator must promptly, even if no formal complaint is filed:


  1. Contact the complainant to discuss the availability of “supportive measures”;

  2. Consider the complainant’s wishes with respect to supportive measures; and

  3. Explain the process for filing a formal complaint.

“Supportive measures” are also defined in the Final Rule as non-punitive, individualized services, offered as appropriate and without charge to a complainant or a respondent before or after the filling of a Formal Complaint, or where no complaint has been filed.  The measures should be designed to restore or preserve equal access to the education program or activity without “unreasonably” burdening the other party.  OCR outlined that these could be counseling, course modifications, schedule changes, or increased monitoring or supervision.

Importantly, OCR clarified that schools must treat complainants and respondents (persons reported to be the perpetrators of conduct that could constitute sexual harassment) equitably.  This means that supportive measures must also be offered to respondents and the Title IX grievance process must be followed before the school may discipline or sanction the respondent.  Given this requirement, utilizing a supportive measure that completely removes a respondent from an education program or activity may be considered punitive.  Additionally, the fact that most schools have student codes of conduct that prohibit conduct that overlaps with the conduct at issue in sexual harassment investigations can make it challenging to ensure it is clear that, if a student is disciplined for the same conduct prior to the completion of the Title IX grievance process, the discipline is specifically for a code of conduct violation and that he or she is not being disciplined for sexual harassment under Title IX.  This is one major area where K-12 institutions must be very careful with documentation and explanations of disciplinary actions. 

There are two exceptions to the prohibition against disciplining or sanctioning a respondent prior to the completion of the Title IX grievance process.  The first is an “immediate emergency removal” which must be based on an individualized safety and risk analysis and be deemed necessary to protect a student or other individual from immediate threat to physical health or safety.  When a respondent is emergency removed, he or she must be given notice and an immediate opportunity to challenge the removal.  The second exception allows for “employee administrative leave” to the extent permitted under state law, board policy, and/or collective bargaining agreements.

Investigation Steps

The next important change is that the Final Rule outlines specific steps for investigating, dismissing, and determining responsibility for Formal Complaints.  This is a change from the prior stance of OCR which allowed schools discretion to outline their own policies and practices for complaint resolution.  Schools are now required to take the following steps for investigating, dismissing, and determining responsibility in response to a Formal Complaint:

  1. Provide written notice to all known parties that includes notice of the grievance process; notice of the allegations with sufficient detail to allow the respondent to prepare a response; a statement that the respondent is presumed not responsible for the conduct and that that responsibility will be determined at the completion of the grievance process; notice of the parties’ right to an advisor and to review evidence; and notice of any provision of the school district’s code of conduct that prohibits knowingly providing false information or statements during the grievance process.

  2. Have mandatory and discretionary reasons for dismissal of a Formal Complaint.  Schools must dismiss a Formal Complaint if: (a) the alleged conduct does not constitute sexual harassment, even if true; (b) the conduct did not occur in the school’s program or activity; or (c) the conduct did not occur in the United States.  Schools are permitted to dismiss a Formal Complaint if: (a) the complainant requests to withdraw; (b) the respondent’s enrollment or employment ends; or (c) specific circumstances prevent the district from gathering sufficient evidence to reach a decision.  If the district dismisses a complaint, it must provide written notice promptly to both parties simultaneously, including the reasons for mandatory or discretionary dismissal.

During the entirety of the investigation and grievance process, the district must ensure the following requirements are met:

  1. Ensure that the burden of proof and of gathering evidence rests on the district and not on the parties, except that certain treatment records cannot be obtained without voluntary, written consent from the party (if over 18) or the parent;

  2. Provide an equal opportunity for the parties to present witnesses and other evidence;

  3. Not restrict the ability of either party to discuss the allegations under investigation or to gather and present relevant evidence;

  4. Provide the parties with the same opportunities to have others present during interviews or other related proceedings, including an advisor who may but is not required to be an attorney;

  5. Provide the parties with the same opportunities to have others present during any grievance proceeding, including the opportunity to be accompanied by an advisor of their choice, who may be, but is not required to be, an attorney; yet, the district may establish restrictions regarding the extent to which the advisor may participate in the proceedings, as long as the restrictions apply equally to both parties;

  6. Provide, to a party whose participation is invited or expected, written notice of the date, time, location, participants, and purpose of all hearings, investigative interviews, or other meetings, with sufficient time for the party to prepare to participate;

  7. Provide both parties an equal opportunity to inspect and review any evidence obtained as part of the investigation that is directly related to the allegations, including the evidence upon which the district does not intend to rely in reaching a determination and inculpatory or exculpatory evidence whether obtained from a party or other source, so that each party can meaningfully respond to the evidence prior to conclusion of the investigation.  Prior to completion of the investigative report, the district must send to each party and the party’s advisor, if any, the evidence subject to inspection and review in an electronic format or a hard copy, and the parties must have at least 10 days to submit a written response, which the investigator will consider prior to completion of the investigative report. The recipient must make all such evidence subject to the parties’ inspection and review available at any hearing to give each party equal opportunity to refer to such evidence during the hearing, including for purposes of cross-examination;

  8. Prepare an investigation report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence and, at least 10 days prior to a hearing (if a hearing is provided) or other time of determination regarding responsibility, send to each party and the party’s advisor, if any, the investigative report in an electronic format or a hard copy, for their review and written response. 


Live hearings are now required for post-secondary institutions, but not for K-12 schools.  Yet elementary and secondary schools may choose to conduct live hearings.  Even without a hearing, the district must provide each party with the opportunity to submit written questions that it wants asked of another party or witness after the investigation report is complete. 

When determining responsibility, there are now specific requirements and standards.  First, the decision-maker cannot be the individual who conducted the investigation or the Title IX Coordinator.  The decision maker must apply the district’s standard of evidence and issue a written determination to both parties simultaneously that:

  1. Identifies the allegations potentially constituting sexual harassment;

  2. Outlines the procedural steps taken from the receipt of the formal complaint through the determination, including any notifications to the parties, interviews with parties and witnesses, site visits, methods used to gather other evidence, and hearings held;

  3. Lists the findings of fact supporting the determination;

  4. Identifies the conclusions regarding the application of the district’s code of conduct to the facts;

  5. Includes a statement of, and rationale for, the result as to each allegation, including a determination regarding responsibility, any disciplinary sanctions the recipient imposes on the respondent, and whether remedies designed to restore or preserve equal access to the district’s education program or activity will be provided by the district to the complainant; and

  6. Outlines the district’s procedures and permissible bases for the complainant and respondent to appeal.

Appeal Process and Additional Considerations

There is also now a requirement that schools offer an appeal process.  Both parties have the right to appeal a determination of responsibility and the district’s dismissal of a complaint for any of the following reasons: (a) a procedural irregularity that affected the outcome; (b) new evidence that was not available at the time of the determination and could affect the outcome; or (c) conflict of interest on the part of the Title IX Coordinator, investigator, or decision maker that affected the outcome. The decision maker for the appeal cannot be the Title IX Coordinator, investigator, or initial decision maker, and also must not have a conflict of interest or bias generally or related to the particular complainant and respondent.  The appeal decision maker must also receive specific training.  In K-12 schools, these appeals may be made to the board of education.

Schools also cannot use informal processes to address sexual harassment complaints unless a Formal Complaint has been filed and the district provides both parties written notice of rights to an investigation, obtains the parties’ written, voluntary consent, and does not offer informal resolution in the context of a complaint alleging that an employee harassed a student.

There are also new and extensive record keeping requirements related to all matters involving sexual harassment complaints and investigations.

Training

A school district must ensure that Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any person who facilitates an informal resolution process, receive training on:

  1. the new definition of sexual harassment;

  2. the scope of the district’s education program or activity;

  3. how to conduct an investigation and grievance process including hearings, appeals, and informal resolution processes, as applicable; and

  4. how to serve impartially, including by avoiding prejudgment of the facts at issue, conflicts of interest, and bias.

Decision-makers at any stage of the grievance process must receive training on any technology to be used at a live hearing (if conducted) and on issues of relevance of questions and evidence, including when questions and evidence about the complainant’s sexual predisposition or prior sexual behavior are not relevant.

Anyone conducting investigations under Title IX must also receive training on issues of relevance to create an investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence.

Any materials used to train Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any person who facilitates an informal resolution process must not rely on sex stereotypes and must promote impartial investigations and adjudications of formal complaints of sexual harassment.

Given the new and extensive Title IX requirements, districts must take steps prior to August 14, 2020 to enact new policies and regulations to incorporate these major changes.

U.S. Secretary of Education Decides Special Education Waivers Not Needed to Address COVID-19

When Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) on March 27, 2020, it included a section that allowed the U.S. Secretary of Education to request waivers of portions of the special education laws based on COVID-19.  On Monday, Secretary Betsy DeVos issued a Report to Congress of her recommendations on what waiver authority the Department of Education will need to address COVID-19.  

Ultimately, the Secretary did not recommend waiver authority for any of the major elements of the IDEA or Section 504.  The Report specifically noted that there was no recommendation for waiver authority related to the free appropriate public education (FAPE) requirement in the least restrictive environment (LRE).  Further, no additional waivers were recommended related to the requirements in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).  Secretary DeVos stated that “while the Department has provided extensive flexibility to help schools transition, there is no reason for Congress to waive any provision designed to keep students learning.”

There is a recommendation to grant authority to the Department of Education to extend the IDEA Part B transition evaluation timelines, so that the timeline begins “no later than the day on which health and safety factors allow for face-to-face meetings to resume and the toddler is able to be evaluated.”  The Department is also seeking waiver authority to authorize Part C services to continue during the delayed Part B transition evaluation timelines, so that a toddler may continue to receive Part C services after his or her third birthday and until a Part B evaluation is completed and an eligibility determination is made.  This ensures that there is not a gap in services because a Part B evaluation cannot be completed, since, as the law is currently written, Part B funds cannot be used for a child not yet eligible for Part B services and Part C funds cannot be used for a child who has aged out of Part C.

The Report does not affect any prior guidance from the Department of Education, or stated flexibility in such guidance, related to special education distance learning.  But this does provide the most definitive answer from the Department of Education regarding what will be done at the federal level with respect to special education requirements. 

Ohio Emergency Management Agency Indicates FEMA Grant Funding Available, But Limited in Scope, For Schools

Because the federal government declared a nationwide emergency due to COVID-19 on March 13, 2020, local governments, including Ohio school districts, became eligible for federal funding through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Public Assistance Program.  The purpose of this grant program is to support communities’ recovery from major disasters by providing them with financial assistance for life-saving emergency protective measures and restoring public infrastructure.  In Ohio, this program is administered by Ohio’s Emergency Management Agency (OEM).

While there is a list of eligible expenditures that could potentially have applied to schools, OEM confirmed that FEMA has stated schools are only eligible for reimbursement for disinfection of school facilities.  Increased operating expenses for tele-schools or costs for meal provision, for example, are not eligible expenses for schools at this time, according to OEM.  Schools may be eligible for reimbursement for staff overtime costs for disinfection efforts as well.  There is no maximum amount of funding available to each applicant for actual costs for eligible work.  There is a minimum of $3,300 for each grant.

The application is available here, and may be filed by email to emarecovery@dps.ohio.gov.  Schools and other entities are encouraged to apply as soon as possible, although the typical 30-day application window has been extended for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.  OEM confirmed that some Ohio school districts have already taken advantage of this grant money for their disinfecting efforts.

ODE Issues Guidance On Virtual Learning Plans/Instructional Hours and Student Attendance

Today ODE issued anticipated guidance on virtual learning plans, instructional hours, and student attendance during this period of school building closure for students due to COVID-19.

Instructional Hours and Virtual Learning Plans

ODE reiterated that minimum instructional hours for students have not been waived, and remain as follows:

  • 455 hours for students in half-day kindergarten. 

  • 910 hours for students in full-day kindergarten through grade 6. 

  • 1,001 hours for students in grades 7-12. 

In order to meet these hours, HB 197 allows schools to utilize Ohio Revised Code 3313.482 in order to make up hours through virtual learning/blizzard bags for the school days in which buildings are closed to students. Many districts had questions about whether their virtual instructional hours would “count” under HB 197 and ORC 3313.482.

ODE explained in its guidance that:

  • Districts should adopt or amend their virtual learning plans, per ORC 3313.482, to address “the longer-term reality of the ordered school-building closure.”

  • In their plans, districts may include the full range of remote learning strategies being used, including online learning.

  • ODE interprets ORC 3313.482 to provide “some extended student assignment deadlines during short-term closures,” but that during this long-term closure “districts should maintain flexibility to address assignment completion deadlines based on local needs.”  

  • ODE again stated schools should not shorten their school years.

  • EMIS Reporting

    • Districts and schools must continue to report EMIS data. 

    • The EMIS reporting instructions will be updated to re-purpose the code previously used only for calamity days to now mean: (1) calamity days prior to March 1, 2020, and (2) days closed due to ordered school-building closure after March 1, 2020. 

    • Any true calamity days (e.g., snow days) after March 1, 2020 until the end of the 2019-2020 school year should be reported, per the updated EMIS instructions, with a different EMIS code to differentiate those days from ordered closure days. 

    • For each day a school “takes advantage of the flexibility and makes a good faith effort to offer instructional programming to students," the time should be reported in EMIS using the “blizzard bag” code. Those hours will count toward meeting the state minimum hours. 

    • For each day a school's flexible plan is in place, the school may count the instructional hours that were originally planned for that day toward the instructional hours requirement. 

    • For any day the district does not make a good faith effort to offer instruction to its students, the district should report the day as a true calamity day (using the new EMIS code).

Based on this guidance, for those districts that have made a good-faith effort to provide instructional programming to students during this closure period, again, ODE indicates those hours will count for the full amount of instructional hours originally planned for that day. This interpretation should bring some relief to districts concerned about specific and awkward aspects of ORC 3313.482 - for example, whether ODE would require the specific short-term grading criteria/timelines in the law to be met during this period of long-term closure.

Student Attendance

ODE reiterated that students will be deemed to be in attendance during the non-spring-break periods included in the ordered school-building closure.  However, ODE further indicated that this does not negate responsibility for student attendance:

  • It is expected that “districts and schools are making a good faith effort, using processes and strategies within their capabilities, to ensure students are regularly participating in educational opportunities and are provided with supports when needed.”

  • ODE acknowledged this period of closure disproportionately impacts disadvantaged students for a variety of reasons, and therefore staff should attempt to regularly make contact with students, especially those who are not participating, and districts should have a process in place to do so.

  • Students will not accrue absence hours toward truancy. Therefore they will not be placed on formal absence intervention plans.

  • Students with absence intervention plans in place prior to the ordered school-building closure should be provided supports outlined in the plan to the extent possible. Alternative means of contact can be used (e.g., video chat, email, etc.).

  • At the end of the 60-day period, the district’s absence intervention team must determine if the student made “satisfactory progress” and if it will choose to file a truancy complaint with the county juvenile court. “Satisfactory progress” should be considered based on individual student needs and account for barriers the student may have faced during this time period.

With this guidance, ODE seeks to offer flexibility to districts given these unique and challenging times.

ODE Issues Further Guidance on Educator Evaluation Systems

As districts grapple with how to address teacher evaluations this year, the Ohio Department of Education this week issued a 21-question FAQ regarding evaluations for the 2019-2020 school year, OTES 1.0, and OTES 2.0. Highlights include:

  1. Confirmation that evaluations completed before March 14, 2020 may be used in the evaluation process. Those evaluations that were not completed by that date, may be completed virtually.

    However, it is critical that districts are aware that the post-March 12 evaluation completion process is subject to each district’s specific collective bargaining agreement. If districts are planning to complete evaluations inconsistent with the CBA, that should be done by agreement with the teachers’ union or the district may face a grievance or other legal challenge.

  2. Districts have discretion to complete evaluations on a case-by-case basis.  Meaning, districts do not have to choose between completing all evaluations or none.

    However, districts are well advised to make these decisions fairly, and understanding that teachers who do not receive evaluations “are afforded the rights established under Ohio Revised Code Section 3319.11. Likewise, districts also should be mindful that administrators who do not receive evaluations are afforded rights under Ohio Revised Code Section 3319.02.”

    For example, one consequence of an incomplete evaluation is the inability to non-renew; accordingly, the consequences for not evaluating can be significant.

  3. A “COVID-19” option has been added under the “exemption” tab within eTPES and OhioES, for those evaluations that were not completed. For “COVID-19” exemptions, the teacher will maintain the rating and evaluation cycle that were in place at the start of the 2019-2020 school year at the start of the 2020-2021 school year [when school begins in the fall of 2020]. 

    Districts should review the language in the “exemption” tab in eTPES, as it has examples of how this applies in practice.

  4. Subject to each district’s collective bargaining agreement, the district will have until May 22 (previously May 1) to complete teacher evaluations, and must provide a written report of the results of the evaluation to teachers by May 29 (previously May 10). 

    Remember, if a district’s CBA has the May 1 and May 10 dates, districts would need to reach an agreement with the union to utilize these later dates.

  5. ODE confirmed that value-added data that was generated from state assessments administered in the 2018-2019 school year and was reported in the fall of 2019 will be used in completed evaluations for the 2019-2020 school year. In accordance with HB 197, ODE confirmed that value-added data will not be available in 2020-2021, given the lack of data from spring 2020 assessments.

    ODE did not provide advice on how districts should address student growth in the 2020-2021 school year, without value added.

  6. For student growth in the 2019-2020 school year, ODE advised that vendor assessments and SLOs can be completed virtually if the district deems it is possible or practicable to do so, although the reliability of that data may be in question. Therefore, districts also may explore the use of shared attribution.  

  7. House Bill 197 does not give ODE discretion to waive specific required components of the evaluation process, such as student growth measures. For 2019-2020, districts that choose to complete evaluations for teachers without the required student growth measures (excluding value-added) must be aware those teachers will be on a full evaluation in 2020-2021. The COVID-19 exemption only allows for a district to determine if it wants to exempt an entire evaluation. 

  8. SLOs and vendor assessment data must be from the current school year; districts cannot use last year’s data as a substitute.

  9. ODE confirmed that districts have until September 1, 2020 to update the local teacher evaluation policy to conform to the OTES 2.0 Framework.

  10. Districts required to implement OTES 2.0 in the 2020-2021 school year can delay until the 2021-2022 school year.

    This decision should be approved by the local board of education, and in accordance with district collective bargaining agreements.

ODE did not address other issues that districts are addressing on a local level - e.g., improvement plans, teachers eligible for a continuing contract, reductions in force, and so on. Districts should consult this ODE guidance, but ensure they are considering the implications of evaluating, or not evaluating, based on the unique circumstances in their own districts. In addition, and critically, districts must remember that this ODE guidance does not supersede collective bargaining agreements, HB 197, or any other applicable law or regulation.

Wage Garnishments and COVID-19: What Should Districts Do?

Student Loans

The CARES Act, which was passed by Congress on March 27, 2020, gives relief to some individuals with federal student loans, including suspensions on employer garnishments. Specifically regarding garnishments, the CARES Act states that “during the period in which the Secretary [of Education] suspends payments on a loan [through September 30, 2020] the Secretary shall suspend all involuntary collection related to the loan, including . . . wage garnishments authorized under section [20 U.S.C. 1095a] or [31 U.S.C. 3720D].” What is important to note is that the loan forbearance and garnishment relief only applies to loans that are held by the Department of Education. There are numerous federal student loans not held by the Department of Education and, thus, not protected from garnishment. Accordingly, districts must be cautious about stopping federal loan garnishments to ensure it is only done for loans held by the Department of Education.

The Department has stated it must rely on employers to make the change to borrowers' paychecks, so it will monitor employers' compliance with the request to stop wage garnishment. The Department further stated that for borrowers who are protected from garnishment, but where money is still being taken from a paycheck on or after March 13, 2020, the Department will provide a letter to their employer’s HR department that instructs the employer to stop the wage garnishment. Districts can rely on that notice from the Department of Education to the district to move forward with suspension of garnishment.

Given the Department of Education’s reliance on employers, if you intend to be proactive regarding your employees who may qualify for this garnishment relief, you can contact the collection agency or loan servicer for each employee you typically garnish for federal student loans to determine if the loan is held by the Department of Education. If you can definitively confirm that a certain employee’s loan is held by the Department of Education, you could stop garnishing on that loan based on the CARES Act. Again, it may not be necessary to take the step of doing independent investigation into whether the Department of Education holds a particular loan, given the forthcoming Department of Education letters.

The Department of Education also should be sending notices to borrowers about the suspension of garnishments. And so, districts may also start hearing from employees who receive their letters from the Department of Education regarding garnishment relief. If an employee provides you with a copy of their letter from the Department of Education, but you have yet to receive a letter directly from the Department of Education, you should contact the collection agency/loan servicer to confirm the employee’s loan is held by the Department of Education prior to ceasing the garnishment.

It is also important to note that if you have garnished an employee’s wages for a loan held by the Department of Education after the CARES Act went into effect, the Department of Education will refund the borrower’s garnished wages; there is nothing the district would need to do as an employer regarding these prior garnishments at this time.

Other Garnishments

There is nothing in the CARES Act regarding other garnishment orders from courts or other agencies; it only applies to federal student loans held by the Department of Education. As of the date of this blog post, the Ohio House and the U.S. Senate both recently introduced legislation that would stop garnishment from creditors and other collection efforts until after the COVID-19 emergency has subsided. Yet neither bill has been passed as of yet. In the interim, districts should continue to comply with any active garnishment orders from courts or other agencies, unless you hear otherwise from the specific court or agency. Further, districts may start to experience a slowdown in some of the garnishment requests or orders, given the downtrend of work in many courts and agencies based on COVID-19. We anticipate that the courts/agencies will catch up with the orders once the emergency has subsided so districts may expect an influx at a point in the future.

U.S. Dept. of Labor Issues Guidance on Families First Coronavirus Act

Last week, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued temporary regulations regarding the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) that provides important information about the implementation of the Expanded Family and Medical Leave Expansion Action (EPFMEA) and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA). The important clarifying aspects of the regulations are:

Employee Eligibility:

The regulations make clear that, for EPSLA purposes, all employees of a covered employer are eligible to take EPSLA leave (with a few exceptions not relevant to school districts). With respect to EPFMEA, employees must be employed for at least 30 calendar days to be eligible for leave.  An employee is employed for at least 30 calendar days where: 

  • The employee was on the employer’s payroll for the 30 calendar days immediately prior to the date on which the employee’s leave would begin; or

  • The employee was laid off or otherwise terminated by the employer on or after March 1, 2020, and rehired or reemployed by the employer on or before December 31, 2020, provided that the employee had been on the employer’s payroll for 30 or more of the 60 calendar days prior to the date the employee was laid off or terminated.

Finally, similar to traditional FMLA, when an employee is employed by a temporary placement agency (for example, a contracted for substitute teacher) and subsequently hired by the employer, the employer must count the days worked as a temporary employee of the agency toward the 30-day eligibility period.

Job Protection/Restoration:

The regulations provide that upon return to work from EPSLA or EPFMEA leave, the employee has the right to be restored to the same or equivalent position, subject to certain limitations: (a) an employee is not protected from employment actions, such as layoffs, which would have affected the employee had they not taken leave; to deny restoration of employment, the employer must be able to show that the employee would not otherwise have been employed at the time reinstatement is requested; and (b) for EPFMEA leave only, an employer may deny job restoration to certain “key” employees (as defined under preexisting FMLA regulations), if denial of restoration is necessary to prevent substantial and grievous economic injury to the employer’s operations. The steps to use option (b) are very specific and limited. 

EPSLA Designation of Fulltime & Part-Time Employees:

Employees are deemed to be "fulltime” and thus receive 80 paid sick leave hours in two situations: (1) if their employer normally schedules them to work at least 40 hours each workweek; or (2) for employees without a normal weekly schedule, if the average number of workweek hours their employer schedules them to work (including leave hours they take) is at least 40 hours per workweek over the entire period of employment or the six-month period that ends when the employee takes paid sick leave, whichever is shorter.

All other employees are "part-time”. The regulations outline how to determine how many EPSLA hours “part-time” employees receive:

  • Part-time employees with a normal weekly schedule receive an amount of EPSLA that equals the total amount of hours worked in a two-week period.

    • Example: if employees work 20 hours each week, they receive up to 40 hours under EPSLA.

  • For Part-time employees who lack a normal weekly schedule, employers should use the total hours the employee worked during the six-month period (or the entire period of employment, if shorter) before taking leave, divide that by the number of calendar days in the period, then multiply the result by 14.

    • Example: if an employee works 520 hours in a six-month period, that roughly equates to 2.857 hours per calendar day, so, multiplied by 14, the employee receives up to 40 hours of EPSLA.

    • Importantly, if at the time of hiring, the employer and employee had reached an agreement concerning the average number of work hours each calendar day, that daily number multiplied by 14 determines the amount of EPSLA the employee is eligible to receive.

The EPFMEA Unpaid Period is the Time an Employee Normally Works in Two Workweeks:

Although EPFMEA has a “10-day” unpaid period, the DOL equates that period to two workweeks. Example: if an employee is normally scheduled to work three 10-hour shifts per workweek, "10 days” will be the six days the employee normally works during a two-workweek period, after which the employee transitions to "paid" EPFMEA .

EPFMEA Leave and Traditional FMLA Leave Cannot Exceed 12 Weeks in a 12-Month Period but Employee Still Entitled to EPSLA Leave:

EPFMEA cannot exceed a total of 12 weeks of leave during the applicable 12-month period. Any amount of traditional FMLA leave an employee used earlier in that same 12-month period reduces the amount of EPFMEA leave the employee may take.

Example: if during an applicable FMLA 12-month period, an employee takes 4 weeks of traditional FMLA leave, the employee has 8 weeks of EPFMEA leave left to use in that same period. But, if an employee has exhausted all 12 workweeks of traditional FMLA leave, EPFMEA leave, or a combination of traditional FMLA leave and EPFMEA leave, the employee still can make use of any remaining EPSLA leave.

Substitution of Accrued Employer-Provided Paid Leave and “Top Offs”:

The DOL regulations clarify how accrued paid leave interacts with EPSLA and EPFMEA:

  • For the two weeks (up to 80 hours) of EPSLA, the employee has the sole discretion to use EPSLA or any accrued paid leave the employer provides. The employer cannot require that employees substitute employer-paid leave during this time.

  • For the initial "10 days/two workweeks" of unpaid EPFMEA, the employee can elect to use employer-provided paid leave, but the employer can require that this count toward overall EPFMEA leave entitlement. This means that an employee may be eligible to use EPSLA during this time, employer-provided leave, or both, to top off to 100% of their pay.

  • For the remaining 10 weeks of paid EPFMEA, the employer cannot require that an employee “top off” EPFMEA with employer-provided leave, vacation, or PTO, but the parties can mutually agree to top off. If the parties do agree, this does not extend the overall amount of EPFMEA leave.

Telework:

Telework can occur during normal hours or at other times if the parties agree. The DOL regulations address administrative challenges and how telework interacts with pre-FFCRA standards concerning when the workday begins and what constitutes "hours worked" for FLSA minimum wage and overtime purposes.  The DOL says that for FFCRA telework, the "continuous workday" rule will not apply. Generally, under the “continuous workday” rule, employees are "on the clock" once they first perform tasks that are “integral and indispensable to" their “principal activity.” However, for FFCRA purposes, because of the need for flexibility regarding work arrangements, the DOL clarifies that employers are not "required to count as hours worked all time between the first and last principal activity." Instead, employers must pay employees for "all hours actually worked." Example: if during a workday while teleworking from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., an employee performs work from 7-10 a.m., 1-4 p.m., and 7-9 p.m., the employee works 8 hours, not 14 hours.  It is critical for employees to accurately record their hours, which may be new to many employees.  The DOL also stresses that employers must pay employees for hours of work they know employees perform, i.e., if employees do not record all hours, and employers do not have actual or constructive knowledge that employees perform unrecorded work, payment occurs for known, recorded hours only.

Qualifying Events:

(1) The employee is subject to a Federal, State, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19: The regulations broadly interpret this to cover "quarantine, isolation, containment, shelter-in-place, or stay-at-home orders" a federal, state, or local government issues, including advisories that "categories of citizens (e.g., of certain age ranges or of certain medical conditions) to shelter in place, stay at home, isolate, or quarantine."

Yet importantly, this qualifying reason does not apply when an employee is unable to work because his or her employer is subject to an order – even a quarantine order – shutting the business down or substantially curtailing its operations.   The employer has to have work available for the employee to do in order for the employee to be entitled to leave.  Example: if a coffee shop closes temporarily or indefinitely due to a downturn in business related to COVID-19, it does not have work for employees to perform, so employees cannot take leave; this applies even if a stay-at-home order substantially causes the closure.  According to § 826.20(a)(2), this reason for EPSLA applies only if, but for being subject to the order, the employee would be able to perform work that is otherwise allowed or permitted by his or her employer, either at the employee’s normal workplace or by telework.  An employee that is subject to a quarantine or isolation order may not take EPSLA where the employer does not have work for the employee as a result of the order or other circumstances.

(2) The employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19: The regulations establish a two-part test: (1) a health care provider (same definition as under the traditional FMLA) must advise self-quarantine due to a belief the employee has, may have, or is particularly vulnerable to, COVID-19; and (2) following this advice and self-quarantining, the employee is unable to work at the normal workplace or telework.

(3) The employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking medical diagnosis from a health care provider: This qualifying event applies when employees are experiencing fever, dry cough, shortness of breath, or any other COVID-19 symptoms the CDC identifies and are unable to work because they take affirmative steps to actually obtain a medical diagnosis, e.g., making, waiting for, or attending an appointment for a COVID-19 test. The DOL regulations clarified that employees cannot use paid sick leave to self-quarantine without seeking a medical diagnosis. Additionally, the regulations explain that employees cannot use paid sick leave if they can telework while awaiting test results.

(4) The employee is caring for an individual who is subject to a quarantine or isolation order or has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19: The regulations define an "individual" as "an [e]mployee’s immediate family member, a person who regularly resides in the [e]mployee’s home, or a similar person with whom the [e]mployee has a relationship that creates an expectation that the [e]mployee would care for the person." The regulations exclude persons with whom employees have no personal relationship.

(5) The employee is caring for his or her son or daughter whose school or place of care has been closed for a period of time, whether by order of a State or local official or authority or at the decision of the individual school or place of care, or the child care provider of such son or daughter is unavailable, for reasons related to COVID-19: Where the employee requests leave to care for a child whose school or place of care is closed, the DOL adopts recently issued IRS guidance by limiting EPSLA and EPFMEA only to situations where the employee must actually care for the child and no other suitable person (e.g., co-parents, co-guardians, or the usual childcare provider) is available to care for the child during the period. If another caretaker is available to care for the child, the employee cannot use leave.

(6) The employee has a substantially similar condition as specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor: the agency has not specified any other substantially similar condition as of yet.

Intermittent Leave:

In an effort to limit the risk that an employee might spread COVID-19 to other employees, the DOL has limited the use of intermittent leave for those working onsite to two main conditions: 1) that the employee and employer agree to the use of intermittent leave; and 2) such use is limited to the employee’s need to care for a child whose school or place of care is closed, or where childcare is unavailable. 

The reasoning for this is that, where an employee is absent due to COVID-19 symptoms or diagnosis or is taking care of an individual with symptoms or a diagnosis of COVID-19, it is not acceptable for the employee to take intermittent leave due to the “unacceptably high risk” that the employee might spread COVID-19 to other employees. In these situations, the DOL regulations made clear that the employee must continue to take continuous paid sick leave each day until the employee either exhausts paid leave or no longer has a reason for leave from work. 

In the case of telework, intermittent leave is available for employees who are taking EPSLA or EPFMEA, but again only if the employer agrees.

Notice and Documentation Requirements from Employees Requesting to Use Leave:

Notice

The DOL regulations outline different employee notice requirements depending on the reason for leave:

  • For employees needing leave for school closures/childcare unavailability, and where such leave is foreseeable, employees must provide notice as soon as is practicable (consistent with traditional FMLA standards).

  • When an employee needs leave for any other reason under EPSLA, the standards loosen, and employers can only require employees provide notice after the first workday (or part of a workday) that an employee takes EPSLA. Employers must accept this notice from the employee’s spokesperson, such as a family member or other responsible party, if the employee is unable to provide such notice personally.

Oral notice of the initial need for leave under FFCRA is sufficient, as long as the employee provides enough information for the employer to determine it is an FFCRA-qualifying reason for leave. However, nothing in the regulations prevents an employer from directing employees to then follow the employer’s usual and customary procedures from that point forward. The DOL reminds employers that if an employee fails to providing notice or supporting information/documentation, the employer should give the employee notice of the failure and an opportunity to correct the deficiency prior to denying the leave.

Documentation

Prior to being able to take EPSLA or EPFMEA leaves, the employee must provide:

  • the employee's name,

  • the dates for which the employee is requesting leave,

  • the qualifying reason, and

  • an oral or written statement that the employee is unable to work.

The DOL also outlines what type of documentation or information employees must provide in support of various types of leave under EPSLA/EPFMEA:

  • Employee subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19: the name of the governmental entity that issued the Order.

  • A health care provider advises an employee to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19: the name of the health care provider who advised the employee to self-quarantine.

  • Employee caring for an individual who is subject to a quarantine or isolation order or an individual who has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine: either the name of the governmental entity that issued the Order to which the individual being cared for is subject, OR the name of the health care provider who advised the individual being cared for to self-quarantine.

  • Employee caring for a child whose school is closed or childcare is unavailable due to COVID-19 precautions: name of the child, name of the school, place of care or child care provider (each defined in the regulations) that has closed or become unavailable, and a representation that “no other suitable person will be caring for the child during the period” the employee is taking EPSLA or EPFMEA for this reason.

It seems that the DOL is permitting employers to require information, but perhaps not much actual documentation, particularly compared to traditional FMLA documentation standards.

Employer Recordkeeping Requirements:

To comply with the FFCRA’s paid leave mandates, employers must retain documents and information regarding EPSLA and EPFMEA for four years, regardless of whether they grant or deny leave. Additionally, if the employee provides oral statements only, it is the employer’s responsibility to document those oral statements and associated information for its records for the four-year period.

EPFMEA Generally Incorporates Traditional FMLA Protections:

The FFCRA discusses only job restoration rights. In the regulations, the DOL states that all pre-FFCRA traditional FMLA protections apply to EPFMEA, e.g., FMLA interference.

Continuation of Health Care Coverage:

The regulations state that where an employee is taking EPSLA or EPFMEA leave, the employer must maintain the employee’s coverage under any group health plan on the same conditions as it would provide if the employee had been continuously employed during the entire leave period.  If an employer provides a new health plan or changes its existing plan while the employee is on leave, the employee gets the new or changed plan/benefits to the same extent as if they were not on leave.  Changes to things like premiums or deductibles that apply to all employees in the workforce would also apply to employees on FFCRA leave, as would notice of any opportunity to change plans or benefits. 

Employees are responsible for paying their portion of group health premiums they were paying prior to taking leave. Where a payroll deduction is insufficient to cover the employee’s share of the premium, an employer should look to pre-existing FMLA regulations for alternative means to obtain payment.

While on leave, an employee may choose not to retain group health plan coverage, but, upon return, can have coverage reinstated on the same terms that existed prior to taking leave, without any additional qualifying period, physical examination, or exclusion of pre-existing conditions.

Employers that Offered Additional Leave Before April 1, 2020:

During the COVID-19 crisis, and prior to April 1, 2020, many employers provided employees with additional paid leave before federal law required it. The regulations make clear that, notwithstanding any leave employers previously provided, leave they must provide under the FFCRA is in addition to that leave. Additionally, the DOL makes clear that employers need not retroactively pay employees for absences that would have qualified for FFCRA leave had the law existed when the absence occurred.

ODE Weighs In on Educator Evaluations After Passage of Emergency Legislation Regarding COVID-19

Today the Ohio Department of Education issued guidance on the completion of educator evaluations for this 2019-2020 school year, including the extension of timelines. The guidance is a follow-on to the passage of House Bill 197, which among numerous other issues, authorized the State Superintendent to extend timelines for OTES and other educator evaluations.

Specifically, the ODE guidance states as follows:

  • Completed Educator Evaluations: As stated in HB 197, ODE reiterated that Districts can rely on educator evaluations completed prior to the closing of school buildings for students.

  • Incomplete Educator Evaluations: ODE reiterated what is contained in HB 197, in that districts have flexibility with evaluations this school year. Districts that did not complete such evaluations for teachers, counselors, administrators and superintendents by March 14, 2020, can choose not to complete those evaluations, if the board determines it would be impossible or impracticable to do so. A school district may collaborate with unions to determine whether to complete evaluations.

    (Legal Note: please consult legal counsel if you intend not to evaluate, as there are consequences for failure to evaluate, including for example, an inability to non-renew certain staff.)

  • Educator Evaluations for This School Year, Contract and Employment Decisions: ODE reiterated that, in accordance with HB 197, if an evaluation is not completed, the employee is considered not to have had an evaluation for the 2019-2020 school year (see legal note above). Importantly, ODE further stated that districts have until May 22 (typically May 1) to complete teacher evaluations, and must provide written evaluation results to teachers by May 29 (typically May 10).

    (Legal note: Districts must check their collective bargaining agreements prior to relying on these extended dates, as many CBAs include bargained-for deadlines that will be inconsistent with ODE’s end-of-May extension.)

  • Updating Local Policies for OTES 2.0: Pursuant to the State Superintendent’s authority under HB 197, ODE stated it is providing flexibility for the development of OTES 2.0 policies. Instead of July 1, 2020, districts now have until September 1, 2020 to adopt an updated teacher evaluation policy to conform to the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) 2.0 Framework.

  • Implementing OTES 2.0: According to ODE, Districts required to implement OTES 2.0 “have the discretion to determine their readiness to implement in the 2020-2021 school year or delay for one year until 2021-2022. It is recommended this decision is made in collaboration with teachers.”

A Review of Current Federal and State Guidelines on Educating Students with Disabilities During COVID-19

As schools around the country began educating students in a distance learning setting  based on COVID-19 concerns, it became important to know how to address providing education and services to students with disabilities.  Shortly after Governor DeWine formally announced students in Ohio would not attend school in person, the U.S. Department of Education issued its first round of guidance on this topic (available here: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/qa-covid-19-03-12-2020.pdf).  Since then, the Ohio Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Education have issued additional guidance at different times; we anticipate that each agency will continue to provide specific direction and information in the coming weeks and months.  Below is a summary of the current guidance on educating students with disabilities.

U.S. Department of Education Guidance

The U.S. Department of Education has stated that if a school district provides any “educational opportunities” to the general student population during the time students are not in school, “the school must ensure that students with disabilities also have equal access to the same opportunities, including the provision of FAPE.”  If the district is not providing any educational services to the general student population during this time, then the district is not be required to provide services to students with disabilities during the same period of time.  For districts providing educational opportunities, like most Ohio school districts, this is a daunting task - ensuring FAPE for special education services in a distance learning setting.  The U.S. Department of Education clarified more recently that ensuring compliance with the IDEA should not prevent any school from offering educational programs through distance instruction.  Along with this directive, the U.S. Department of Education stated that it will offer flexibility where possible, and reminded educators that federal disability law allows for flexibility in determining how to meet the individual needs of students with disabilities.  Importantly, the U.S. Department of Education also noted that the determination of how FAPE is provided may need to be different in this time of unprecedented national emergency, and educators can take into account the need to protect the health and safety of students and service providers.  The U.S. Department of Education ended by encouraging parents, educators, and administrators to collaborate creatively to continue to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

The U.S. Department of Education also provided some guidance (available here: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/Supple%20Fact%20Sheet%203.21.20%20FINAL.pdf) on meeting procedural requirements under the IDEA during this time period, emphasizing that it will offer flexibility whenever possible.  Specifically, the U.S. Department of Education stated that extensions of time may be granted for the following:

  • State Complaints: even without agreement by the parties, a state may be permitted to extend the 60-day timeline for complaint resolution based on the exceptional circumstance of having a large number of state staff unavailable or absent for an extended period of time.

  • Due Process Hearings: the parties can mutually agree to extend the 30-day resolution period based on COVID-19 and a hearing officer may grant a specific extension of time for his/her decision at the request of either party.

  • IEPs: once a child is found eligible for services under the IDEA, the IEP team must still meet and develop an initial IEP within 30 days of the determination of the need for special education and related services.  While this timeline did not change, ODE and the U.S. Department of Education have expressly stated that virtual meetings or conference calls can be used to conduct IEP meetings.  IEP annual reviews are still required, but, again, parents and the IEP team may agree to conduct the meetings via videoconferencing or conference calls.  When making changes to a child’s IEP after the annual IEP meeting, the parent and the school district may agree to not convene an IEP team meeting for the purposes of making those changes and instead develop a written document to amend or modify the child’s current IEP. 

  • Initial ETR: an initial ETR must still be conducted within 60 days of receiving parental consent (yet see below regarding ODE’s guidance that if initial ETRs can be completed without face-to-face components, they should be completed within the 60 day timeline but ETRs requiring face-to-face assessments or observations must be delayed until schools reopen to students).

  • Triennial ETR: parents and the district may agree that a triennial reevaluation is not necessary.  When the reevaluation is necessary, it may be conducted through a review of existing evaluation data and can be conducted without a meeting and without obtaining parental consent.

In any situation where the timelines are adjusted with consent of the parent, such an adjustment should be comprehensively documented in a PR-01.

Ohio Department of Education Guidance

The Ohio Department of Education has also issued some guidance (available here: http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Student-Supports/Coronavirus/Considerations-for-Students-with-Disabilities-Duri) that is helpful to Ohio schools.  ODE states that schools should make “a good faith effort” to provide related services and interventions to students with disabilities if they offer some form of instruction during the closure.  ODE goes on to state that “[i]f, however, a student with a disability cannot access the alternate delivery models being offered to general education students, then the district should consult with parents and/or caregivers to determine the needs of the student and identify the most appropriate means for meeting those needs during the closure period.” 

Regarding ETRs, ODE expressly states that reviews of ETRs can be completed using a virtual format or via teleconference.  If the initial ETR or triennial ETR requires face-to-face assessment or observation, ODE notes that the evaluation will need to be delayed until schools are reopened to students.  If the initial ETR or triennial ETR can be completed without such in-person components, the district should attempt to complete the ETRs and meet (via videoconference or conference call) to discuss the results.  ODE also clarified that a typical triennial ETR may be done through a records review.  In a situation where a triennial evaluation cannot be completed, the district must continue to provide the student with the same services.  For all of these scenarios, the district should comprehensively document whatever process it utilizes in a PR-01.

Regarding IEP meetings, if a meeting is necessary, or requested by the parent, to determine adjustments to a student’s IEP, ODE advises that it should be conducted virtually or by phone. When doing so, the manner in which the IEP meeting is conducted should be documented in the PR-01.  Importantly, ODE clarified that, consistent with guidance released by the U.S. Department of Education, if a district is shifting instruction to an alternative mode for all students due to COVID-19 and distance learning, it is not required to convene  the IEP  team  or  amend the IEP for the sole purpose of students not attending school in person.  This is helpful to clarify that, based on guidance from both the federal and state agencies, school districts do not need to amend every student’s IEP to account for the mandated change to the location of services.

ODE has stated, consistent with the U.S. Department of Education, the determination about whether compensatory education is required should be made on an individual basis after schools reopen for students.  IEP teams should review student data to determine whether critical skills have been lost during the pandemic period. 

Families First Coronavirus Act Expands Paid Leave Options, Including for School Employees; Dept. of Labor Issues Guidance and Required Posting

Congress passed the Families First Coronavirus Act (“Act”) effective April 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, which requires certain employers, including public school districts, to provide employees with paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave for specified reasons related to COVID-19.  The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (“DOL”) issued preliminary guidance on March 24, 2020 concerning the Act, and also created a corresponding poster schools must post to employees. The guidance is provided in three parts: (1) a Fact Sheet for Employees; (2) a Fact Sheet for Employers; and (3) a set of Questions and Answers. Additional guidance is expected, but the preliminary guidance may be found here:

Fact Sheet for Employees: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/pandemic/ffcra-employee-paid-leave

Fact Sheet for Employers: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/pandemic/ffcra-employer-paid-leave

Questions and Answers:  https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/pandemic/ffcra-questions

Generally, employers covered under the Act must provide employees up to two weeks (80 hours, or a part-time employee’s two-week equivalent) of paid sick leave based on the higher of their regular rate of pay, or the applicable state or federal minimum wage.  In addition, for eligible employees unable to work due to a need for leave to care for a child whose school or childcare provider is closed, an additional (10) weeks of partially paid expanded FMLA leave is available.  The following generally outlines the duration and amount of pay for these leaves:

  • For qualify reasons #1-3 below, eligible employees are paid at one hundred percent (100%), up to $511 per day and $5,110 total (over a 2-week period);

  • For qualify reasons #4 or #6 below, eligible employees are paid at two-thirds (2/3), up to $200 per day and $2,000 total (over a two-week period); and

  • For qualifying reason #5 below, eligible employees are paid up to 12 weeks, with: (1) the first two weeks being the expanded paid sick leave (if the employee chooses to use the expanded sick leave for this time, versus another available leave or taking it as unpaid leave); and (2) the next 10 weeks being paid family and medical leave.  These two leaves (expanded sick and expanded FMLA) that make up the 12 weeks are paid at two-thirds (2/3), for up to $200 per day and $12,000 total (over a 12-week period).

To qualify for the 10 weeks of FMLA leave, employees must have been employed for at least thirty (30) days prior to their leave request (not the standard FMLA eligibility criteria of 1,250 hours in the previous year). However, to qualify for the two weeks of paid sick leave, there is no requirement that the employee has worked for any specific amount of time to be eligible.

An employee is entitled to take leave related to COVID-19, for the duration and amount described above, if the employee is unable to work, including unable to telework, because the employee:

  1. Is subject to a Federal, State, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;

  2. Has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine related to COVID-19;

  3. Is experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and is seeking a medical diagnosis;

  4. Is caring for an individual subject to an order described in #1 or self-quarantine as described in #2;

  5. Is caring for his or her child whose school or place of care is closed (or childcare provider is unavailable) due to COVID-19 related reasons; or

  6. Is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Please note, a part-time employee is eligible for leave for the number of hours that the employee is normally scheduled to work during the two-week period. If the normally scheduled hours are unknown, the employer should use a six-month average to calculate the average daily hours of the employee. If the employee has not been employed for at least six months, the Department of Labor directs employers to use the agreed upon number of hours the employee is expected to work upon his or her hire.

In addition, many school employees have already accrued paid sick leave or other forms of paid time off, in accordance with board policies/applicable collective bargaining agreements.  The Act specifies that the expanded paid sick leave, and expanded paid FMLA leave benefits can be used in addition to any other applicable paid leaves provided by the school district.  While you cannot require the use or exhaustion of already accrued sick leave/other paid leaves before an employee takes the Act’s expanded paid leave options, employees may opt to use the expanded paid leave first if they choose to do so, and then supplement it with any applicable, previously accrued paid leave to reach their full wage rate.

Under the Act, employers must notify employees of the paid leave. Per the Act’s language, the DOL has provided the model notice for employers to use in notifying their employees of the Act’s eligibility requirements, leave calculations, penalties, and more. The DOL Model Poster for employer notification may be found here: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/posters/FFCRA_Poster_WH1422_Non-Federal.pdf

Districts must post this notice “in a conspicuous place on its premises,” such as an employee break room or other common space.  However, given school districts are having most staff work remotely, in accordance with Dept. of Labor guidance, districts must post this notice “by emailing or direct mailing this notice to employees, or posting this notice on an employee information internal or external website.”

Employers in violation of the first two weeks paid sick time or unlawful termination provisions of the Act will be subject to the penalties and enforcement described in Sections 16 and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 29 U.S.C. 216; 217. Employers in violation of the provisions providing for up to an additional 10 weeks of paid leave to care for a child whose school or place of care is closed (or child care provider is unavailable) are subject to the enforcement provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Department will observe a temporary period of non-enforcement for the first 30 days after the Act takes effect, so long as the employer has acted reasonably and in good faith to comply with the Act.  For purposes of this non-enforcement position, “good faith” exists when violations are remedied and the employee is made whole as soon as practicable by the employer, the violations were not willful, and the Department receives a written commitment from the employer to comply with the Act in the future.