STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
WARWICK SCHOOL
DEPARTMENT
Petitioner,
v.
COVENTRY SCHOOL
DEPARTMENT,
Respondent
RIDE No. 21-046J
DECISION AND ORDER
Held: School Department’s petition seeking reimbursement from another School Department for tuition allegedly owing with respect to a student who chose to attend an out-of-district career and technical education program was granted by the Commissioner, and an order entered providing for reimbursement.
February 24, 2022
I. INTRODUCTION
On or about December 27, 2021, Petitioner, Warwick School Department (“WSD”), filed a petition with the Commissioner of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (“RIDE”), alleging that the Coventry School Department (“CSD”) refused to pay tuition that was due and owing for A. Doe, a student who resides in the Town of Coventry and who has been attending a Career and Technical Education (“CTE”) program at WSD.[1]
Following a pre-hearing conference, a Consent Order (“Consent Order”) entered on January 13, 2022, in which the parties agreed that there are no material facts in dispute and that this matter could be resolved without an evidentiary hearing. Consistent with the terms of that Consent Order, on January 19, 2022, WSD filed an affidavit (“the Affidavit”), attesting that CSD allegedly owed $17,584.00 for A. Doe’s tuition for CTE programming she attended during the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years.[2]
WSD has requested that the Commissioner grant it the following relief: (1) “withhold and deduct the sums owed by [CSD] from its state aid allotment and issue such payment to [WSD]”; and, (2) issue “an order that [CSD] continue to remit timely payment, within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice, for any subsequent invoices related to student [A. Doe]’s” tuition for CTE programming she attends at WSD.[3]
II. JURISDICTION
The Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide this matter, and WSD has standing, under, inter alia, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 16-45-10 and 16-5-30. Section 16-45-10 provides as follows:
If a sending school district fails to pay the requisite tuition to a school district hosting a vocational school, the commissioner of education may, based upon an affidavit filed by the host community, deduct the requisite sums from the state aid of the sending district and pay these sums over to the host district. The sending district may request a hearing if the debt is disputed, but the deductions and payments shall continue to be made during the pendency of the hearing and any appeal.
Id.
Section 16-5-30 provides as follows:
The commissioner of elementary and secondary education may, . . . for nonpayment of tuition owed by one community to another . . . , order the general treasurer to withhold the payment of any portion of the public money that has been or may be apportioned to the city or town.... If the violation is for nonpayment of tuition and it has been determined by the commissioner that the tuition is owed, then the commissioner shall, subject to the debtor community's right to appeal to the superior court, order the general treasurer to deduct the amount owed from the debtor community's school aid and to pay the community which is owed the tuition.
Id. (emphasis added).
III. FACTS[4]
1. A. Doe, a resident of the Town of Coventry, enrolled in WSD’s CTE Program at the beginning of the 2020-2021 school year and remained enrolled at WSD during the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years.
2. WSD bills tuition for CTE programming quarterly.
3. The total amount WSD invoiced CSD for A. Doe’s tuition for the 2020-2021 school year is $13,834.00, a sum representing four quarterly invoiced amounts of $3,458.50, of which $10,375.50 remains due and owing by CSD for the second, third, and fourth quarters of the 2020-2021 school year.
4. The total amount WSD has invoiced CSD for A. Doe’s tuition for the 2021-2022 school year is $7,208.50, a sum representing two quarterly invoiced amounts of $3,604.25, for the first and second quarters of the 2021-2022 school year, of which the entire $7,208.50 remains due and owing by CSD.
5. The total invoiced amount due and owing by CSD for A. Doe’s attendance at WSD during the 2020-2021 and the 2021-2022 school years is $17,584.00.
6. CSD has refused to pay WSD the invoiced amounts for A. Doe’s attendance and enrollment at WSD, despite due demand.
7. The parties have agreed and stipulated that CSD operates a CTE program in the same subject matter in which student A. Doe is enrolled and attending at WSD.[5]
IV. RELEVANT STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS
The Regulations Governing Career and Technical Education in Rhode Island, 200 R.I. Code R. 20-10-3.5 (“CTE Regs”), provide that, “[a]ll students shall have the right to request, from their resident LEA, access to a RIDE-approved career preparation program of their choice,” and that, “[t]his right of access shall be limited only by . . . three conditions.”[6]
As recently amended, R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-45-6.1, “Career and Technical Education,” provides, in pertinent part, that:
(d)(1) Students shall have a right to request enrollment and to enroll in a CTE board of trustees’ approved program outside of their community of residence when a substantially similar or same (‘substantially similar’) CTE board of trustees approved program is not offered within their community of residence.
(3) Effective January 15, 2022, and every year thereafter, the CTE board of trustees and the department of elementary and secondary education shall publish a detailed list of substantially similar CTE programs for the upcoming school year. . . .
(4) Students enrolled in, accepted to, or attending a state CTE board-approved program (the ‘program of choice’) prior to January 1, 2022, which program is outside of their home district but is considered to be substantially similar to a program in their home district, shall be allowed to remain enrolled in that program of choice as set forth in subsection (j) of this section.
(e) Students may request access to state CTE board-approved career preparation programs outside their school district if their home district does not provide a substantially similar state-approved CTE program.
(j) Students enrolled in, accepted to, or attending a state CTE board-approved program of choice outside of the students' home district as of January 1, 2022, shall be exempt from the substantially similar provisions of this section and may continue to matriculate in grades nine (9) through twelve (12) in their program of choice so that students and parents who made educational decisions prior to January 1, 2022, shall retain the rights that were in place when they made those decisions. If a substantially similar state-approved program is established in a student's home district after the student has enrolled in a program of choice, the student may continue to matriculate in grades nine (9) through twelve (12) in the student's program of choice provided the student remains enrolled in the program.
Id.[7]
V. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. Petitioner
WSD relies on the undisputed facts set forth in its Affidavit to support its claim to recoup the cost of tuition for A. Doe.[8]
B. Respondent
CSD acknowledges that the CTE Regs permit students to attend a CTE program “of their choice,” but contends that, “this regulation contravenes the [Council on Elementary and Secondary Education’s] statutory duty to promote maximum efficiency and economy in the delivery of . . . educational services in the state.’” (See Resp. Br. at 1) (quoting R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-60-4(a)(14) and the CTE Regs). CSD asserts that prior decisions of the Commissioner have failed “to explain either how the regulations in question promote maximum efficiency and economy in the delivery of education services or why it is that the statute should be superseded by regulation.” See id. at 2 (citing North Kingstown Sch. Dept. v. Coventry Sch. Dept., 21-036J (Jan. 5, 2022) and Met v. Chariho, 010-16, 3 (April 12, 2016)).
CSD also contends that recently enacted amendments to R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-45-6.1 are “inapplicable to this situation.” See id. Section 16-45-6.1(j) “is intended to protect students who enroll in an out-of-district CTE Program, and a substantially similar program is created after their enrollment, but before January 1, 2022.” See id. (emphasis added). This section was “not intended to protect . . . . students . . . who enroll in an out-of-district CTE program when the student’s residential district already offers the same CTE Program.” See id.
VI. DECISION
A. The CTE Regs unambiguously provide A. Doe, a student residing in the Town of Coventry, a right of access to CTE programming at WSD.
As the Commissioner has previously held, the language of the CTE Regs clearly and unambiguously grants all students “the right to request, from their resident LEA, access to a RIDE-approved career preparation program of their choice.” See Metropolitan Regional Career and Technical Center v. Chariho, RIDE No. 010-16 (April 12, 2016) at 3, aff’d by the Council on March 28, 2017 (emphasis added).[9] Moreover, the Commissioner has already rejected the erroneous interpretation of the CTE Regs advanced by CSD here. See North Kingstown Sch. Dept. v. Coventry Sch. Dept., 21-036J (Jan. 5, 2022) (a factually analogous case in which, just last month, CSD made identical and equally unavailing arguments); Chariho, supra, at 2.[10]
Contrary to CSD’s contentions, the CTE Regs do not “supersede” R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-60-4(a)(14), and the two provisions are easily read in harmony. See Chariho, supra, at 3 (“while the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education is required to promote maximum efficiency and economy in the delivery of educational services, the [CTE Regs] integrate those considerations into an expanded educational model that incorporates student and family choice as an additional influence on program options and quality”).
B. Under Rhode Island Gen. Laws § 16-45-6.1(j), A. Doe retains the right of access to her CTE program of choice because she enrolled in WSD prior to January 1, 2022.
Pursuant to § 16-45-6.1(e), “[s]tudents may request access to a state CTE board-approved career preparation program outside their school district if their home district does not provide a substantially similar state-approved CTE program” (emphasis added). However, under § 16-45-6.1(d)(4), “[s]tudents enrolled in, accepted to, or attending a state CTE board-approved program (the ‘program of choice’) prior to January 1, 2022, which program is outside of their home district but is considered to be substantially similar to the program in their home district, shall be allowed to remain enrolled in that program of choice as set forth in subsection (j) of this section.” Id. (emphasis added).
In turn, subsection (j) provides that “[s]tudents enrolled in, accepted to, or attending a state CTE board-approved program of choice outside of the students’ home district as of January 1, 2022, shall be exempt from the substantially similar provisions of this section and may continue to matriculate . . . in their program of choice so that students and parents who made educational decisions prior to January 1, 2022, shall retain the rights that were in place when they made those decisions.” See § 16-45-6.1(j) (emphasis added).
A. Doe enrolled in WSD CTE programming prior to January 1, 2022, and is therefore exempt from the “substantially similar” limitation placed on students’ access to CTE board-programs under § 16-45-6.1(e). In addition, pursuant to § 16-45-6.1(j), A. Doe retained the right of access to her CTE program of choice because the CTE Regs providing that right were in place at the time she and her parents made the decision that A. Doe would attend CTE programming at WSD.
VII. ORDER
For all of the above reasons:
1. WSD’s Petition in the above matter is hereby granted;
2. An order in the form of the attached Exhibit A directing the General Treasurer to deduct $17,584.00 from the state education aid allotted to the Town of Coventry and to pay this sum over to WSD shall enter forthwith; and
3. CSD shall timely remit payment, within 30 days of the receipt of invoice, for any subsequent invoices related to student A. Doe’s tuition for career and technical education programming she attends at WSD during the third and fourth quarters of the 2021-2022 school year, with further withholding of state aid to occur in the event CSD fails to make timely payment.
Footnotes
[1] In its Petition, WSD sought to recoup the tuition for two students, A. Doe and R. Doe, but WSD subsequently dismissed, without prejudice, its claims as to student R. Doe. Hence, this Decision and Order addresses only WSD’s claim to recoup tuition for student A. Doe.
[2] Pursuant to the Consent Order, the parties agreed that WSD should submit an affidavit pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-45-10, by January 21, 2022, “in support of its claim that CSD is responsible for tuition due and owing with respect to A. Doe,” and that CSD would have until February 4, 2022 “to show cause why the Commissioner should not issue an order requesting the General Treasurer to deduct the sums WSD alleges are due and owing for A. Doe’s tuition.”
[3] See Affidavit filed by WSD on January 19, 2022.
[4] The facts stated herein are drawn from the Affidavit, as there are no material facts in dispute. See “[CSD’s] Memorandum in Support of its Objection to Warwick’s Petition” (“Resp. Br.”), filed on February 5, 2022.
[5] This stipulation of fact was memorialized in an Order that entered on January 25, 2022.
[6] The three conditions stated in the CTE Regs are: (1) the “availability of enrollment seats” at the requested CTE program; (2) the costs to transport a student to a an out-of-district CTE program; and (3) admission standards of the requested CTE program. See CTE Regs at 20-10-3.5.1(A)(1)-(3). None of these conditions are present in this case.
[7] The law, as amended, was effective July 9, 2021.
[8] See supra note 2.
[9] This right of access is limited by only three express conditions, none of which are present in this case. See supra note 6 and corresponding text.
[10] In Metropolitan Regional Career and Technical Center v. Chariho, RIDE No. 010-16 (April 12, 2016), Chariho, like CSD in the present case, contended that interpreting the CTE Regs to permit students access to out-of-district CTE if a “comparable program” existed locally would be “at odds” with the Council’s statutory duty under R.I Gen. Laws § 16-60-4(a)(14) to promote efficiency and economy in the delivery of educational services. See id. at 2.
JULIE A. SACKS, ESQ.,
as Hearing Officer for the Commissioner
Angélica Infante-Green,
Commissioner
Entered this 24th day of February 2022
EXHIBIT A
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
WARWICK SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
Petitioner,
v.
COVENTRY SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
Respondent
RIDE No. 21-046J
COMMISSIONER’S ORDER TO THE GENERAL TREASURER TO WITHHOLD SCHOOL AID FROM THE COVENTRY SCHOOL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-45-10, the Warwick School Department filed with the Commissioner an affidavit in which its director of finance attested that a sum of $17,584.00 is due and owing by the Coventry School Department for the tuition of a student A. Doe;
WHEREAS, the Coventry School Department did not contest the factual representations made in Warwick’s affidavit and also failed to show cause why the Commissioner should not withhold and deduct the sum of $17,584.00 from the Town of Coventry’s state aid allotment until the Coventry School Department met its obligation;
WHEREAS, on this date, the Commissioner rendered a decision, granting the Warwick School Department’s request to withhold and remit funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-5-30, the Commissioner hereby respectfully requests that the Honorable Seth Magaziner, in his capacity as General Treasurer for the State of Rhode Island, deduct the sum of seventeen-thousand five hundred eighty-four dollars and zero cents ($17,584.00) from the school aid owed to the Coventry School District and to pay this sum over to the Warwick School District.
Angélica Infante-Green,
Commissioner
Entered this 24 day of February 2022.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the within “Commissioner’s Order to the General Treasurer to Withhold School Aid from the Coventry School District” was sent by electronic mail on this 24th day of February to Andrew Henneous, Esq., attorney for the Warwick School Department, at ahenneous@hcllawri.com, and Sean Clough, Esq., attorney for the Coventry School Department, at sclough@brcsm.com.