by Pamela Leist | Sep 29, 2013 | Student Education and Discipline
The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) recently published additional guidance to clarify certain provisions of the Third Grade Reading Guarantee. ODE’s guidance addresses minimum achievement levels for promotion to fourth grade, summer and midyear promotion of students to the fourth grade, and a description of the Ohio Achievement Assessment (OAA) alternatives.
Promotion Requirements
According to ODE, for the 2013-2014 school year, a student must obtain at minimum score of 392 on the 3rd grade OAA to be promoted to the 4th grade, unless the student qualifies for one of the following exceptions:
- A limited English proficient student who has been enrolled in U.S. schools for less than three full school years and has received less than three years of instruction in an English as a second language program;
- A special education student whose IEP specifically exempts him/her from retention under the Third Grade Reading Guarantee;
- Any student who has received intensive remediation for two years and was previously retained in kindergarten through the third grade; or
- A student who demonstrate reading competency on a Reading OAA Alternative approved by ODE.
OAA Alternative
OAA alternative assessments will be aligned to the end of the year 3rd grade reading standards. The required score on these alternate assessments will be comparable to, or more rigorous than, the OAA proficient score. ODE will release a list of available OAA alternative assessments in February of 2014. All districts must administer alternative assessments upon parental request for any student who scores below the required cut score on the Spring OAA. In addition, districts may continue to administer OAA alternatives through the summer.
Summer Promotion
If a student fails to meet the required cut score on the Fall OAA, Spring OAA, and OAA alternative, the student should continue to receive intense reading intervention during the summer. ODE will provide a Summer OAA for districts to administer to students who have failed to meet the required cut score for promotion to the fourth grade. If a student can acheive the minimum required score of 392, the student shall be promoted to the fourth grade but should continue to receive reading intervention.
Midyear Promotion
A district is required to develop procedures for midyear promotion to fourth grade for any student who is retained in third grade but who later demonstrates required grade level reading proficiency. In addition, the law mandates a district provide instruction commensurate with student achievement levels in a specific academic ability field if a student who has been retained demonstrates proficiency in that field. However, ODE suggests that if a district believes a student may be eligible for midyear promotion, the district should provide instruction at the fourth grade level in all subject areas. ODE recommends that districts include in their procedures a process of assessment to determine a student’s proficiency in academic content to meet the requirements listed above. The district should also include specific procedures for provision of academic supports when a student is promoted to fourth grade midyear.
Reference:
A full version of ODE’s guidance on “Student Promotion and the Third Grade Reading Guarantee” can be accessed by clicking here.
by Pamela Leist | Apr 8, 2013 | Legislation
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati recently ruled that administrators at a Kentucky school district conducted an unlawful search of a student’s cell phone. The student, who was enrolled as an out-of-district student in the Owensboro Public School District, was using his cell phone during class in violation of school rules. His teacher saw the phone, confiscated it, and turned the phone over to the school’s assistant principal.
While the student was enrolled in the district, there had been numerous incidents of bad behavior. In addition, the student had communicated to school officials on several occasions that he was a frequent drug user and that he was contemplating suicide. Concerned about the student’s troubled past, the assistant principal decided to conduct a limited search of the student’s phone in order to determine whether the student was breaking any other rules or whether he might be contemplating suicide. The assistant principal found no evidence of wrongdoing or any indication that the student was a threat to himself or others. Nevertheless as a result of the incident, the district revoked the student’s out-of-district enrollment status.
The student sued the school district for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, arguing that the assistant principal had no reasonable suspicion to justify a search of the student’s cell phone text messages. The district responded that reasonable suspicion did exist based on the student’s documented drug abuse, his threats of suicide, and his numerous prior disciplinary infractions. It argued that the search was limited and “aimed at uncovering any evidence of illegal activity” or any indication that the student might hurt himself.
The Court ruled in favor of the student and stated that the use of a cell phone on school grounds “does not automatically trigger an essentially unlimited right enabling a school official to search any content stored on the phone that is not related either substantively or temporally to the infraction.” The Court went on to state that general knowledge of illegal drug use or depressive tendencies does not enable a school official to search a student’s phone when a search would otherwise not be warranted. In this case, there was no indication that the student was engaging in any illegal activity or that he was contemplating injury to himself or anyone else at the school. Therefore, the search of the phone was improper and illegal.
The Court reiterated that the standard for search of a cell phone is the same as the standard for any search by school officials. The main question that must be answered during any search by school officials at school is whether, under the circumstances, the search is reasonable. There are two parts to the reasonableness test: (1) the search must be justified at its inception; and (2) the manner in which the search is conducted must be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the search.
The case discussed above failed on the first prong. In order to search a student’s cell phone, district administrators should have a reasonable suspicion that the search will turn up evidence the student is breaking other school rules or laws, or that the student plans to harm himself or others. General knowledge that the student might be engaged in such activities is not enough. Without reasonable suspicion, district administrators cannot read any of the student’s texts or otherwise looking into the content of the student’s phone.
Administrators should also remember that when a search is justified at its inception, it must also be limited in scope. Therefore, if an administrator reasonably believes he or she will find evidence of wrongdoing, the administrator may only look at the data on the phone that will contain that information. For example, if an administrator sees a student texting in class and has reasonable suspicion to believe that the student is engaging in a drug deal, the administrator can look through the recent text messages. However, absent any additional information, the administrator most likely is not justified in searching the student’s photo album. In any case, if you have questions about whether a search is reasonable, you should contact your district’s legal counsel to discuss the situation.
Case Citation: G.C. v. Owensboro Public Schools, No. 11-6476 (6th Cir. March 28, 2013)
by Pamela Leist | Nov 7, 2012 | Labor and Employment
On September 26, the Ohio General Assembly enacted sweeping public pension reform legislation. The legislation consisted of a package of five bills, including Senate bills 341 and 342, affecting the School Employees Retirement System (SERS) and the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS). Both bills will become effective on January 7, 2013. The most significant changes to each system are highlighted below.
SERS (SB 341)
- Changes retirement eligibility requirements
- Members who have less than 25 years as of August 1, 2017 will be eligible to retire at age 57, with 30 years
- Changes retirement benefit formulas
- Benefits will be unreduced for members who had less than 25 years of service credit on August 1, 2017 but are at age 67, with 30 years when they retire
- Benefits will be reduced for members who had less than 25 years on August 1, 2017 and are not at age 67 when they retire
- Changes eligibility requirements for disability benefits
- A member’s disabling condition must have occurred before contributing service terminated
- Members now required to attend vocational rehabilitation, if recommended, to continue receiving disability benefits
- Establishes new penalties for SERS employers
- $100 per day for failure to transmit contributions withheld from employees
- $100 per day for failure to timely transmit any amounts due to the Employer’s Trust Fund
- $100 per day (not to exceed $1,500 total) for failure to timely transmit payroll information
- $50 per record (not to exceed $300 total) for each month of failure to transmit a detailed statement on an employee’s prior service and personal information
STRS (SB 342)
- Increases the amount of member contributions beginning July 1, 2013 through July 1, 2016
- Contribution rate will be increased by yearly increments from 10% to 14%
- Changes the final average salary (FAS) years from three to five
- For benefits beginning on or after August 1, 2015, members’ five highest years of compensation will be used to determine the FAS
- Changes retirement eligibility requirements
- For unreduced benefits (early retirement):
|
Now- 8/1/15
|
Any age and 30 years; or age 65 and 5 years
|
|
8/1/15-8/1/17
|
Any age and 31 years; or age 65 and 5 years
|
|
8/1/17-8/1/19
|
Any age and 32 years; or age 65 and 5 years
|
|
8/1/19-8/1/21
|
Any age and 33 years; or age 65 and 5 years
|
|
8/1/21/-8/1/23
|
Any age and 34 years; or age 65 and 5 years
|
|
8/1/23-8/1/26
|
Any age and 35 years; or age 65 and 5 years
|
|
On or after 8/1/26
|
Age 60 and 35 years; or age 65 and 5 years
|
|
Now-8/1/15
|
Age 55 and 25 years; or age 60 and 5 years
|
|
8/1/15-8/1/17
|
Any age and 30 years; or age 55 and 26 years; or age 60 and 5 years
|
|
8/1/17-8/1/19
|
Any age and 30 years; or age 55 and 27 years; or age 60 and 5 years
|
|
8/1/19-8/1/21
|
Any age and 30 years; or age 55 and 28 years; or age 60 and 5 years
|
|
8/1/21-8/1/23
|
Any age and 30 years; or age 55 and 29 years; or age 60 and 5 years
|
|
On or after 8/1/23
|
30 years; or age 60 and 5 years
|
- Reduces the rate used to calculate benefits to 2.2% of final average salary
- Reduces the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to an annual 2%
- No COLAs will be granted from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 to persons retiring prior to July 1, 2013
- No COLAs will be granted until July 1, 2015 to persons retiring on or after July 1, 2013
