Trending
Don't look now, but another unfunded mandate from the state of Ohio is coming soon to a neighborhood school near you.
That mandate comes in the form of the RED Act, approved by the Ohio Legislature recently and signed into law last week by Gov. Mike DeWine. The Religious Expression Days act requires boards of education throughout the state's 600-plus school districts as well as charter schools, STEM schools and college-preparatory boarding schools to adopt a policy that reasonably accommodates the sincerely held religious beliefs and practices of all students. Those policies must include up to three days of excused absences for so-called "religious expression days."
Given the sensitive nature of such policies and their potential for wholesale abuse by students, we urge board of education members and administrators of our area's school districts to proceed cautiously and seriously.
There's no time to waste. According to the law, all such policies must be in place within 90 days for implementation beginning in January 2025.
The act requires each district and school to make publicly available all policies, guidance and training materials used for students, educators and staff on all matters pertaining to the law. That includes a list of major religious holidays, festivals and religious observations, which may include Eid, Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Ramadan, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Passover.
But just how exhaustive should school leaders go to be in good graces with the intent of the act? Should those lists also include such nontraditional religions as Wiccan and paganism? Clearly, the list of additional days off for students could go on exponentially.
School leaders also must ensure fair policies for makeup of all student work are clearly outlined.
After all, the REDs must be considered excused absences. Principals must require teachers to schedule a date and time for each and every student to complete a missed exam or other aspect of missed work. Multiply that by the majority of students in classrooms and the added burden on instructors becomes painfully apparent.
School leaders also would be remiss not to incorporate clear safeguards such as signed parental excusal forms and well-defined punishments for those who do nothing remotely religious on their religious expression days.
On top of all of those concerns, another less publicized section of the RED Act also merits close attention by school policymakers. That aspect of the law forbids educators to "solicit a student to affirmatively ascribe to specific beliefs, affiliations, ideals, or principles concerning political movements, or ideology."
We agree that teachers and other school staff should never try to proselytize or indoctrinate their political, religious or ideological philosophies on impressionable young minds, particularly in the politically volatile climate today. But how far must this requirement go? Should civics teachers be forbidden to bring a Republican or Democratic state lawmaker to class as a guest speaker for fear the speakers' political leanings will leave an indelible and irreversible imprint on students?
That aspect of the law has drawn immediate outrage from the Ohio Education Association, the state's largest teachers union. Its leadership was blunt in its position statement on RED, stating it fears the new law can "cause unnecessary distraction and confusion for educators, students, administrators and parents by requiring vague and amorphous local censorship guidelines."
We, however, are hopeful the new policies will not threaten free speech and the airing of diverse viewpoints in classrooms and all school settings. Nonetheless, implementation of the new law will not come without some struggle and pushback. That's yet another reason why those drafting policies for their school district should tread carefully and seek maximum input from the Ohio School Boards Association and all major stakeholders, including teachers, students and parents.
All of which is not to say it is a bad idea for school districts to respect all religions represented in their classrooms and communities and to make reasonable accommodations for students to practice them. We only wish state overseers would have left more of the particulars of the mandate up to the discretion of community policymakers.
After all, they know best what rules would best serve their communities. As it now stands, once again state bureaucrats have decided what's best for all students in the many, diverse nooks and crannies of our fine state. As they do, they also chip away more at the highly coveted local control over the education of this state's young people.