The Senate Bill 819 public hearing Monday, May 8, in the House Education Committee promises to be powerful.
The bill’s advocates tell compelling stories of students denied their educational rights through “abbreviated days,” but many education leaders fear the bill goes too far and will have unintended consequences.
Current law is unambiguous: All students have the right to a free and appropriate public education, or “FAPE.” This is settled law under federal, state and numerous common law court decisions.
Some students in Oregon, often students who require accommodations, attend school on restricted schedules, aka “abbreviated days.” The SB 819 proponents, led by Sen. Sara Gelser Blouin and including Disability Rights Oregon and FACT Oregon, say abbreviated days are illegal and harmful and SB 819 is necessary to end their inappropriate use.
Some students and families allege that school districts have denied access to their education rights for years. In a recent lawsuit, these families said placing certain types of students on a schedule that is different from, and usually much less robust, than their cohort peers hurt the students. These students’ advocates describe the inappropriate use of abbreviated day schedules as something “that robs [students] of the basic right to receive a full day of effective education at a public school where they live.”
SB 819 would dramatically increase the ability of students and families to require more access to services.
- It would define “student with a disability” to be any student who requires special education (individualized education program) or a civil rights 504 plan, potentially including any students who have had these plans in prior years.
- It would supersede existing federally required processes. Currently, under federal law, students with a disability are given a placement by a team of experts. Usually this team, such as an IEP team, includes school employees and parents. The team’s placement decisions are final. SB 819 would change that. It would go beyond federal requirements and create an Oregon-specific process that would allow parents to revoke an abbreviated day placement and require a full-time placement, presumably in a neighborhood school.
- It would put strict process requirements in place for students on abbreviated days. The teams that placed a student with a disability on an abbreviated day schedule would have to meet every 30 to 90 days.
- It would have licensure repercussions for administrators. If a parent chose to revoke the abbreviated day schedule consent and have the student placed in a full schedule, the change must occur in as little as five school days or the administrator could face a professional licensure complaint.
- It would make it much more difficult, and potentially impossible, to offer entire programs that are abbreviated days for students with a disability. Some school and education service districts run programs or schools that have a shorter schedule specifically for students who might struggle with a full day.
This has been among the most complicated and impactful policy bills this session. Advocates, school board members, agency staff and administrators worked in a weekslong work group process that tried to deliver consensus amendments but, ultimately, was unable to find common ground. For school districts and education service districts, this will change processes, and for the bill proponents, that is the point. They have made clear that they see this bill as the first step toward fixing a system that has not served students with disabilities fairly or sufficiently.
The bill is scheduled for a possible committee vote Wednesday, May 10. Its contents are still in flux, with multiple possible amendments.
Gelser Blouin, D-Corvallis, has even made amendments to an entirely unrelated bill in case SB 819 does not move forward.
OSBA has told bill proponents and other education stakeholders that the challenge of abbreviated days is one that needs attention. We have supported legislation on this topic in previous sessions, including SB 263 (2017) which was enacted into law, and SB 1578 (2022), which did not become law.
The challenge, and the reason we submitted opposition testimony to SB 819 in a Senate hearing, is the concern with the bill unintentionally capturing far too many students, students who are not experiencing an abbreviated day in any sense.
Given the testimony and the findings in a federal lawsuit against the Oregon Department of Education on this topic, students and their families have experienced harm and need access to school. The bill’s broad definitions, however, could mistakenly capture cohorts of students in non-traditional school settings, including charter schools, magnet schools and schools operating on an asynchronous model.
If we can add language to remedy these concerns, we hope to be able to support the bill.
– Richard Donovan
Legislative Services specialist
