Question Submitted by: The Honorable Jason Nelson, State Representative, District 87

2016 OK AG 4
CourtOklahoma Attorney General Reports
DecidedMay 19, 2016
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2016 OK AG 4 (Question Submitted by: The Honorable Jason Nelson, State Representative, District 87) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oklahoma Attorney General Reports primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Question Submitted by: The Honorable Jason Nelson, State Representative, District 87, 2016 OK AG 4 (Okla. Super. Ct. 2016).

Opinion

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Jason Nelson, State Representative, District 87
2016 OK AG 4
Decided: 05/19/2016
Oklahoma Attorney General Opinions


Cite as: 2016 OK AG 4, __ __

¶0 This office has received your request for an official Attorney General Opinion in which you ask, in effect, the following questions:
1. How does the law establishing residency for public school districts define residency for children admitted to day treatment programs?
2. If a facility with a day treatment program is located within the boundaries of the public school district such that students admitted to the program have residency within the public school district, must the public school district provide on-site educational services to those students?
3. Are the limitations or provisions identified in the law establishing residency applicable to day treatment programs?
4. May a facility with a day treatment program contract with a public school district other than the one in which it sits or with another educational service provider for on-site educational services?
5. Which on-site educational services must be provided to children at a day treatment program?
6. Must the provision of on-site educational services include occupational, physical, and speech therapy; academic instruction; meals; or transportation?
7. Is a public school district prohibited from classifying and administering its on-site educational services to children at a day treatment program as an alternative school or an alternative education program?
8. Who is responsible for the supervision of the educational plan, the school district teachers, the academic content of educational services, the classroom, and the student discipline necessary for the provision of on-site educational services at a day treatment program?
9. Does the provision of on-site educational services at a day treatment program impact any licensing or accreditation standards?

I.
Background

¶1 Your questions relate to the provision of educational services to children attending day treatment programs. A day treatment program is defined as a "nonresidential, partial hospitalization program[], day treatment program[], and day hospital program[] in which children and adolescents are placed for psychiatric or psychological treatment."

10 O.S.2011, § 175.20. Day treatment programs are designed to treat children and adolescents with mental health needs that impair their ability to function age-appropriately and who are at risk of needing inpatient, residential, or institutional care. Id. Children attend day treatment programs because such programs are the "less restrictive alternative to inpatient treatment." 43A O.S.2011, § 5-502(7).

¶2 By law, the State Board of Health, the Board of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, and the Oklahoma Health Care Authority Board must promulgate rules establishing standards for day treatment programs as defined above and must coordinate development and oversight of such rules.

10 O.S.2011, § 603.4. Pursuant to this requirement, the State Department of Health1 has established hospital and construction standards for day treatment programs, OAC 310:667-57, and the Oklahoma Health Care Authority Board has established administrative rules governing the requirements for providers seeking accreditation and certification status, OAC 317:30-5. These standards emphasize the need for access to educational services. OAC 310:667-57-3; OAC 317:30-5-241.1(f)(1).

¶3 Further, the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services

2 has promulgated rules applicable specifically to children admitted to day treatment programs. Those rules require that the hours of operation "make it possible for consumers to receive a minimum of three (3) hours of treatment and service each day in the program, excluding time spent in fulfillment of academic educational activities as required by law." OAC 450:17-5-34(a)(1) (emphasis added). And the services provided at day treatment programs must, at a minimum, include the provision or arrangement of academic education as required by state or federal law. OAC 450:17-5-34(a)(2)(H).

¶4 While these Boards govern the hospital, provider, and mental health service aspects of day treatment programs, the State Board of Education (or "Board") is responsible for establishing the standards respecting educational services provided on-site.

70 O.S.Supp.2015, § 3-104.7(B) ("[T]he State Board of Education shall establish standards for on-site educational services provided in . . . day treatment programs."). "The standards shall address all areas of education including teacher certification requirements, number of hours taught, adequacy of facilities, and educational plans including plans for transition into regular school setting." Id. And, importantly, no facility providing a day treatment program "shall be licensed pursuant to the provisions of [the School Code of 1971] unless the facility meets the standards for educational services established by the State Board of Education." Id. § 3-104.7(C). Lastly, the Board is compelled to promulgate rules implementing these requirements. Id. § 3-104.7(D). Reading these requirements together, a day treatment program serving children must, as part of its program, provide or arrange for educational services that meet the standards of the Board. And, indeed, "[i]n order for the facility to meet the standards . . ., a contract must be in effect with an accredited school." OAC 210:35-31-2(a).

¶5 That all the Boards addressed above coordinate their efforts in serving children in need of a less restrictive alternative to inpatient treatment is consonant with the two goals identified in the statute establishing day treatment programs: (1) "preventing the need for or reducing the length of inpatient or institutional care" and, most relevant to this opinion, (2) "reintegrating [] the child into the school and the community."

10 O.S.2011, § 175.20(A) (emphasis added). Indeed, reintegration of the child into the regular school day is a major focus for treatment teams providing services to children admitted to these programs. For example, the standards set for educational services provided in day treatment programs state that "[i]nstruction in an appropriate educational program shall be based on individual needs and should address reintegration into a full school day." OAC 210:35-31-5 (emphasis added). And, again, the education plan for children in day treatment programs "must have detailed plans to fully integrate the child in the home and community, and it must demonstrate collaboration with the educational system to reintegrate the child into the home school." OAC 210:35-31-7 (emphasis added). With reintegration of the child into the community through coordinated efforts in mind, your questions, at base, ask: who is responsible for providing on-site educational services to children at day treatment programs, what educational services must be provided and in what manner may they be delivered, who pays for the provision of on-site educational services, and who oversees the provision of these services?

II.
Principles of Statutory Interpretation

¶6 Statutory interpretation begins with the text of the statute--and absent unresolvable ambiguity--ends with the text. See Stemmons, Inc. v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp.,

1956 OK 221, ¶ 19, 301 P.2d 212, 216. Additionally, the Legislature may delegate power to the agency to implement statutorily-mandated policies. Tulsa Cty. Deputy Sheriff's Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 188 v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Tulsa Cty

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stemmons, Inc. v. Universal CIT Credit Corporation
1956 OK 221 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1956)
McClure v. ConocoPhillips Co.
2006 OK 42 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2006)
Public Service Co. v. Parkinson
1943 OK 299 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 OK AG 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/question-submitted-by-the-honorable-jason-nelson-state-representative-oklaag-2016.