Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Extended Learning Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State frames extended‑learning (ELO) policy; model approval stays local, background checks and liability remain concerns
Summary
Board members reviewed a model state policy implementing a legislative requirement for extended‑learning opportunities and debated statewide vetting, background checks and local school‑board liability for off‑campus credit programs.
The board reviewed a draft state policy implementing a legislative directive that allows private organizations to offer credit‑bearing extended‑learning opportunities (ELOs) in partnership with local school districts. Department staff said the policy sets statewide parameters but leaves approval and liability decisions to local school boards.
"I think we want to set the parameters, but then they need to work with their local school board on the specifics of that," State Superintendent Dr. Eric Mackey said during discussion of the model policy.
Under the draft approach discussed at the meeting, organizations that secure agreements with at least 50% of Alabama school districts would be eligible to apply for a Department of Education certificate of statewide approval. Department staff and several board members pushed back on proposals that would force local districts to accept statewide providers; instead the department favored a state vetting process that would provide a certificate of review but not compel a local board to contract with a provider.
Board members raised two recurring concerns. First, they asked whether instructors working for non‑district ELO providers would be required to undergo criminal‑history background checks; department counsel and board members agreed background checks are required by law and should be explicit in the policy. Second, several members said local boards retain liability for off‑campus activities and cannot be completely indemnified at the state level; department staff explained the legislature has attempted to extend certain immunities in statute but that local boards would still have exposure and would need to assess site‑specific risk when they sign agreements.
The board debated timing. Department staff noted the legislature required the state policy but did not compel districts to participate; those districts that want to allow ELOs can proceed under local memoranda of agreement, and the department will provide a model policy and vetting pathway for programs that reach the adoption threshold. The department will revise the draft to make the background‑check and equal‑opportunity language explicit and will return with the policy for intent‑to‑adopt at a future meeting.
No formal vote was recorded at this session. Board members asked staff to clarify background‑check language, liability language and the process for applying for the department's certificate of approval.
