Omnibus bill would redefine unused‑facility rules, allow remote proctoring and tighten truancy and governance penalties
Loading...
Summary
An unnamed sponsor presented SB 311, a multi‑topic education bill that would define the 60% capacity threshold for unused school facilities, allow charter/nonpublic schools to bid for closed buildings in some cases, require an annual Nov. 30 report of unused facilities, codify remote proctoring rules with a nine‑student proctor limit and expand truancy monitoring and superintendent licensure penalties.
An omnibus education measure, Senate Bill 311, was presented to the committee with multiple provisions affecting school facilities, testing, truancy and school governance.
Key provisions described by the unnamed sponsor included: a clarified definition of what constitutes 60% capacity for unused buildings (either 60% of maximum occupancy or 60% of the highest enrollment in the past 10 years), expanded bidders for unused facilities (adding charter and nonpublic schools while prioritizing high‑quality community schools), exemptions for certain recently built or adjacent facilities, and a requirement that districts report unused facilities annually to the Department of Education and Workforce by Nov. 30 with the department posting the list online.
The bill would also codify recommendations from the Department's remote proctoring pilot to permit remote proctoring for online community schools under specified safeguards (proctors limited to overseeing nine students; required in‑person testing locations must remain available; proctors and staff must be trained). The sponsor described adjustments to truancy monitoring — allowing juvenile judges to retain jurisdiction to continue monitoring a child with prior truancy issues — and proposed that the State Board of Education could suspend, revoke, or limit a superintendent's license if the superintendent knowingly violated Ohio Revised Code; it would also remove qualified immunity for boards that knowingly direct such violations (with a carve‑out for members who did not vote for the directive).
Committee members raised concerns about first right of refusal, long‑term local financial planning, possible unintended consequences if closed facilities later became needed again, and how penalties for superintendents and boards would be applied. The sponsor said they were open to working with members to refine definitions, timelines and carve‑outs.
Next steps: The committee concluded the bill's first hearing; sponsors and members said they would continue discussions and potential amendments on facility disposition, truancy enforcement and governance penalties before future committee action.
