STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION – TOPIC SUMMARY

Topic: Appeal of Decision to Co-Locate OSB and OSD

Date: September 18, 2008

Staff/Office: Cindy Hunt, Superintendent’s Office

Action Requested: Information only Policy Adoption Policy Adoption/Consent Calendar

ISSUE BEFORE THE STATE BOARD:

Whether the state board should uphold, modify or overturn the decision of the Superintendent of Public Instruction to pursue enabling legislation for the co-location of the Oregon School for Blind (OSB) and the Oregon School for the Deaf (OSD) on the OSD campus in Salem.

BACKGROUND:

State law:

State law requires the Superintendent to provide free training and education services in schools located in Marion County for children who are blind or deaf. State law allows the Superintendent to order a change in the purpose and use of the schools if the superintendent “determines that a change in purpose and use will better enable the state to meet its responsibilities for the education and training of children who are blind or deaf.”

State law allows the Board of Directors of the OSB and the Board of Directors of the OSD to appeal to the state board a decision of the Superintendent to change the purpose or use of the schools. The appeal must be filed within 60 days of the date of the decision of the Superintendent.

The state board may uphold, modify or overturn the decision of the Superintendent.

The law that established the Boards of Directors and the appeals process was enacted by the 2007 legislature. This is the first time the state board has heard an appeal under this law.

Boards of Directors of OSB and OSD:

The 2007 legislature established a Board of Directors for the OSB and a Board of Directors for the OSD. The boards of directors are charged with making recommendations to the Superintendent and Department of Education about the OSB and OSD. The boards of directors are directed to adopt a master plan for the each school that specifies the mission and objectives of the school. In the master plan the boards of directors make recommendations for:

·  Procedures for systematically measuring the school’s progress toward meeting its objectives.

·  Procedures for analyzing changes in student population and modifying school programs and services to respond to the changes.

·  The delivery of the school’s services to school districts and education service districts.

Prior to February 1, 2009, the boards of directors must submit their first master plan to the Superintendent and Legislative Assembly.

Decision and Appeal:

On June 5, 2008 the boards of directors were notified of the decision of Superintendent Susan Castillo to pursue enabling legislation for the co-location of the OSB and OSD on the OSD campus. The decision was based on:

·  The schools, as they exist today with very high costs per student, are not sustainable. One objective of the co-location is to bring the operational costs down by reducing duplication and improving school operations.

·  The seismic and structural conditions of the facilities.

The notification stated that the co-location decision is contingent on receiving approval from the Legislative Assembly in 2009. The decision is also contingent on the sale of the OSB property generating sufficient funds to make needed changes to the OSD campus. The Superintendent submitted a bill draft request to allow the funds from the sale of the OSB campus to be placed in a Special Schools Trust Fund. This changes current law which does not provide for a dedication of funds to the OSB or OSD.

On June 19, 2008 the Board of Directors of the OSB voted to appeal the decision of the Superintendent. On July 23, 2008 the Board of Directors filed the appeal with the state board. The rationale for the appeal is that:

·  The decision is premature when considered against the legislative charge of both boards of directors to conduct a comprehensive review of the schools and to adopt a master plan. The Board of Directors has not yet had adequate time to complete its charge.

·  The Board of Directors also contends that the State Schools Study and the report from Innovation Partners, Inc. used in making the Superintendent’s decision raise many questions.

The Board of Directors of the OSB is requesting that the state board overturn the decision of the Superintendent.

On June 27, 2008 the Board Directors of the OSD voted to appeal the decision of the Superintendent. On July 23, 2008 the board filed the appeal with the state board. The rationale for the appeal is that:

·  Cost alone is an insufficient rationale for co-location. The work of the board to review current practices and programs and to adopt a master plan should be the foundation for any decision to co-locate, upgrade and possibly redesign both facilities and programs.

·  There is a demonstrated need for more complete information before going forward with a decision to co-locate.

·  A decision to co-locate must be accompanied by a detailed plan. The decision is premature in the absence of a comprehensive and sustainable plan for the future.

The Board of Directors of the OSD is requesting that the state board overturn the decision of the Superintendent.

The information that is summarized above was taken from the letter sent to the Boards of Directors from the Superintendent notifying the boards of the co-location decision and statements of rationale for appeal that were submitted by each board of directors. The full letter and statements were previously given to the state board in its packet.

Both boards of directors met the statutory timeline requirements for filing an appeal with the state board.

The deadline for the Superintendent to file legislation for introduction in the 2009 legislative session is December 15, 2008.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the appeals from the boards of directors be consolidated into one process as follows:

September 18: Tour the campuses of the OSB and OSD.

October 16: Conduct a hearing that allows the Superintendent and the boards of directors to be heard before the state board and allows the state board to ask questions of the parties. The hearing would be conducted in front of the full state board as follows:

30 minutes – The Superintendent or her designee to present information about the decision.

30 minutes - Representatives of the Board of Directors of the OSB present information and the reasons for the appeal by the OSB board.

30 minutes – Representatives of the Board of Directors of the OSD present information and the reasons for the appeal by the OSD board.

5 minutes – Rebuttal from Superintendent or her designee.

5 minutes – Rebuttal from representatives of the Board of Directors of the OSB.

5 minutes – Rebuttal from representatives of the Board of Directors of the OSD.

December 11: The state board votes on the appeal and either upholds, modifies or overturns the decision of the Superintendent.


Historic Timeline

For

OSD and OSB

1870 OSD established to educate children who are deaf in Oregon.

1873 OSB established to provide an education and establish programs to ensure independence for children who are blind in Oregon.

1895 OSB relocated to its present location at 700 Church Street SE.

1910 OSD moved into the present location on Locust Street.

1971 The responsibility for operating the OSD and the OSB transferred from the Board of Control’s Special Schools Division to the Oregon State Board of Education and Department of Education (ODE).

1973 Federal Rehabilitation law enacted.

1975 IDEA law first enacted.

1983 – 1997 The Legislative Assembly introduced five measures to consolidate OSB and OSD.

2005 The Legislative Assembly adopted the following budget note for ODE:

“The Department of Education is directed to provide a report to the interim Senate and House education committees as well as to the Emergency Board during 2005-07 on the cost-effectiveness of transferring the program at the Oregon School for the Blind to the Oregon School for the Deaf. The review shall include the cost-effectiveness of contracting out of the two programs to a local education agency.”

2006 June: State Schools Study Group recommends to the Superintendent to move

OSB to OSD campus.

July: Superintendent seeks more input on recommendations from across state.

October: Superintendent announces that contracting out instructional programs

to local education agency is not in best interest of students based on testimony

received by the superintendent.

December: Superintendent directs ODE staff to conduct feasibility study on

recommendation to move OSB to OSD campus.

2007 March: ODE releases State Schools Study.

May: Superintendent issues press release announcing decision to move OSB to OSD campus if legislature gives support.

The Legislative Assembly establishes the Boards of Directors for the OSD and OSB.

The bill also includes an appeals process to the state board of decisions of the Superintendent relating to the location of the schools.

June: Legislature does not give necessary budgetary authority for moving OSB to OSD campus. Instead, responding to legislative interest to continue examining the possible relocation of the OSB to the OSD campus, the Legislative Assembly approved the following budget note:

“The Oregon Department of Education will do further analysis on the viability of moving the Oregon School for the Blind (OSB) to the Oregon School for the Deaf (OSD) campus. The Department will complete a Request for Proposal (RFP) to seek costs related to the needed changes to the OSD campus in order to accommodate the OSB and renovations needed to existing structures for the OSD. It is expected that the agency will review the proposed RFP with the interim Joint Committee on Ways and Means or the Emergency Board prior to finalizing it for release.

The agency should begin discussions with potential buyers of the OSB property to ascertain the value and identify any potential issues with the sale.

The results of both processes should be reported to the Legislature during the Special Session scheduled in February 2008.”

December: Innovation Partners conducts site visit and recommends RFI prior to RFP.

2008 February: ODE reports to Legislative Assembly in response to budget note. Report

includes recommendations of Innovation Partners.

June: Superintendent notifies Boards of Directors of decision to pursue enabling

legislation for the co-location of OSB and OSD on the OSD campus in Salem.

July: State board receives appeal request from Boards of Directors.

1