Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? The school contracts with the testing agency that does the grading. Seems like a contractor relationship?
School contractor is someone who is hired by the school district on via a contractual relationship. Think temporary teachers, or custodian staff. It’s not a transitive relationship to every employee of every company who has some sort of contract, however small, with a school.
So you're arguing that only individuals can be a contractor? That wouldn't make much sense, not only because such relationships are rare in schools. Most common are contractors that have been outsourced something like food service. The law would make no sense if it included practically no one. It would mean a company that provides, say, temp staffing within the school, and those temp staffers saw abuse, they too wouldn't be required to report. I have a hard time believing a court would rule the definition to be so narrow. Both the common language understanding of the term and legal literalism would point against that. There's no transitive property here. We're not talking about contractors hired by contractors hired by contractors. We're talking about a contractor and its employees. There is no way for it to exercise this reporting requirement save through it's individual employees.