D21 school board hears implications of Senate Bill 819

“I’m still working on making sure we understand it [SB 819], it is still being interpreted by the Department of Justice [DOJ], is still being interpreted by the Oregon Department of Education [ODE] and by all the attorneys in the state,” Hampton said. “There are a lot of convoluted pieces to this that we are looking to figure out.”

According to the presentation, SB 819, which was signed into law on July 13, changes the structure of an abbreviated school day program placement for students with disabilities in Oregon from the previously established ORS 343.161, establishing “a new framework, emphasizing meaningful access, updated definitions, informed consent, regular meetings and increased accountability.”

ORS 343.161 formerly defined a student with a disability as a “school-aged child who is entitled to a free, appropriate public education as specified by ORS 339.115 and who requires special education because the child has been evaluated as having one of the conditions as defined by rules established by the board of education.”

With the implementation of SB 819, a student with a disability is currently defined as a student who “is eligible for special education and related services, as provided by ORS chapter 343,” “has a disability under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, and is eligible for a 504 Plan” or “has not been determined to be eligible for special education and related services, as provided by ORS chapter 343, or to be eligible for a 504 Plan, but for whom a request or referral for evaluation for eligibility determination has been made but not yet completed.”

According to Hampton, the bill equalizes Individual Education Plans [IEPs], which provide students with specialized instruction specific to their needs, and 504 education plans, which provide students with accommodations and supports under Section 504 of the 1973 federal civil rights law, the Rehabilitation Act.

“It now says that both for students on a 504 plan and students on an IEP that this same law applies, and it applies equally,” Hampton said. “In my world, both an IEP versus a 504 plan are two very significantly different documents, this law equalizes them and makes us do the same paperwork for both.”

While formerly defined as “any school day during which a student receives instruction or educational services for fewer hours than other students who are in the same grade within the same school,” an abbreviated school day is now defined by SB 819 as “any school day during which a student with a disability receives instruction or educational services for fewer hours than the majority of other students who are in the same grade within the student’s resident school district.”

“So that means that we have to compare students at Innovations Academy to students at the main campus of the high school,” Hampton said. “That makes a significant difference when we have a program that has a four day a week program versus a five day a week program, a virtual program that uses asynchronous instruction, versus a program that is full time synchronous instruction in school.”

According to the presentation, the process of placing a student on an Abbreviated School Day Program [ASDP] starts with an initial meeting which parents must be notified of and consent to a conversation regarding the ASDP and discussing the student’s needs, after which, a follow up meeting must take place between 25 and 30 calendar days later, where parents must once again consent to discussing the ASDP and update the initial plan, and schedule subsequent meetings that are required to take place every 30–90 days.

“For students on IEPs, we can meet anywhere from 30 to 90 days apart. If it’s a student on a 504, we can go to every year, but we cannot go longer than 90 days,” Hampton said. “Even if the parent says I’m cool with this, I want to have this plan, we must meet every 30 to 90 days in order to review this plan.”

Should at any time a parent revoke consent for their student to take part in an ASDP, the district must have the student back to full time schooling within five days regardless of why a student was initially placed on an abbreviated day. A parent not attending any of the required meetings would be considered a revocation.

“So, we must start that five-day process, just because the parent was not able to attend the meeting. So we’re significantly hindered if a parent is unable to make a meeting,” Hampton said.

While SB 819 does not offer additional funding for school districts, according to the presentation, abbreviated school days cannot be influenced by factors such as a lack of staffing, transportation, convenience for the district or any illness that would not affect the majority of other students of the same grade in the same district. According to Hampton, this means the district cannot take actions such as releasing students early to make time for their specialized programs or students with mobility issues to get on their bus before the rest of the students are dismissed, without being in violation of the law.

“This year, we had a student who needs a full-time nurse because of his medical needs, and we were really struggling to find that position,” Hampton said. “If we could not have found that position, we could not have brought him to school full time, and that lack of staffing would have violated this law, even though we are doing everything within our power to hire that person.”

According to the presentation, under the new definitions outlined in SB 819, the NWCSD currently has 57 students who are on an IEP or 504 plan that are considered to be on an abbreviated school day, with 44 students taking part in either Innovations Academy, the Kelly Avenue School or Transition 21 — programs that have less hours than the main high school campus — and 10 students who have one or more free periods due to not needing a full schedule to graduate or parents that have requested a late arrival or early release for their student.

“Even though that is their choice, we offer them five periods a day, they have selected to take less than the five periods, we have to do the paperwork for an abbreviated day,” Hampton said.

Only three students, according to Hampton, are on truly abbreviated school days. “It’s the student’s IEP team has made the decision that we believe that right now for this student, it is in their best interest to not be at school for a full day,” she said. “Of those 57 students that we’re currently doing this entire process on, only three of them are ones that we could say it is because we have chosen as a district.”

Any student with an IEP or 504 plan who has had more than 10 school days abbreviated in a school year, for example if they are sent home early due to behavioral issues, will be considered to be on an ASDP, and the district must have met with the student’s parents or guardians by the 10th abbreviated day or be in violation of this law.

According to the presentation, the district must inform ODE of each student’s abbreviated school day plan every 30 calendar days, and Superintendent Carolyn Bernal must review each plan once the student’s ASDP has reached 90 cumulative days over two or more consecutive school years to ensure the district is in compliance with SB 819.

Should Bernal find an inaccuracy, or should ODE receive a complaint or otherwise believe the district is in violation of SB 819, according to Hampton, ODE would launch an investigation into the district. Potential consequences for failing to comply with SB 819 include withholding state school funding, forcing the district to do compensatory education — providing two hours of instruction for one hour missed — and the potential impact of Bernal’s Teacher Standards and Practices Commissions (TSPC) Licensure.

“It’s a little nerve wracking to be the one reporting something that could cost my superintendent her job,” Hampton said.

“I think everyone can completely agree with that every student is entitled to the same number of hours of instruction, the same level of instruction regardless of their disability status. That all students have a right to a full school day. That is something we agree with wholeheartedly,” Hampton said. “The way this law presents it, and what it does, in my mind, actually makes it harder for us to provide that sometimes, and it forces some students to have a full school day, if that’s not necessarily what’s in their best interest.”

The entire Sept. 28 meeting can be viewed on the District 21 Channel on YouTube.