On February 13, 2018, the Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Ohio Department of Education, Ohio Supreme Court No. 2017-0913, a case in which the Ohio Supreme Court is asked to determine whether the Ohio Department of Education (“ODE”) can require online community schools, or eschools, to provide durational records in order to receive state funding. The resolution of this issue could determine the fate of many eschools in Ohio.
The dispute revolves around ODE’s demand that the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (“ECOT”) refund $64 million dollars in state funding for the 2015-2016 school year. As an operator of numerous computer-based community schools, ECOT receives funding from the State of Ohio based on the number of full-time students enrolled in its community schools. ECOT self-reports the number of full-time students to ODE. ODE then performs periodic reviews to investigate whether a funding adjustment is warranted in a given year.
In the 2015-2016 school year, ODE conducted just such a review. Prior to its review, ODE notified ECOT that it would request durational records – i.e., records showing how long or how often students had accessed learning opportunities over the course of the academic year. It is uncontested that ODE had not requested such “durational data” in its prior reviews of ECOT and accepted only enrollment data.
ECOT did not provide the durational data to ODE at the year-end review, asserting that it did not keep track of this type of data since ODE never previously requested it. Rather, ECOT filed a lawsuit asking a court to block ODE from obtaining and considering durational data during the review. Both the trial court and an Ohio appellate court denied ECOT’s request resulting in the appeal before the Ohio Supreme Court. ECOT will be required to refund the state $64 million if ODE is permitted to “clawback” funding for the 2015-2016 school year.
To watch the oral arguments, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.