by Pamela Leist | Oct 30, 2014 | Board Policy & Representation, General, School Management
As districts transition to the new minimum school year reporting system, the Ohio Department of Education (“ODE”) recently released guidance about how it will allocate funding for students that attend school for less than a full day. In July of 2013, House Bill 59 became effective and mandated that the state funding formula for schools be based on annualized full- time enrollment (“FTE”). In order for a district to receive full per pupil funding, each student is expected to receive instruction for the entire day that the student’s grade level is scheduled to attend.
However, school districts typically have a number of students that do not attend for a full day, including students who participate in alternative school programs or who receive home instruction. Currently, districts are required to report in EMIS the percent of time that these students attend school as compared to the full day. In its guidance, ODE states that schools may experience a decrease in funding for part- time students as follows.
Alternative School Programs
Many students who are enrolled in alternative school programs are given the option to complete online modules independently. Often these students do not attend school for the entire day. According to ODE’s guidance, beginning this school year districts will be expected to provide an entire day of instruction for alternative school students unless they apply for and receive a waiver from ODE. ODE cites ORC §3313.533(B)(1), which states that an alternative school student must attend school or participate in another program named in the district’s plan for a period equal to the minimum school day mandated by state law. ODE states that a district may obtain a waiver if it can demonstrate that “the minimum hourly requirements are not workable for a particular student population.”
Districts that wish to apply for a waiver this school year are instructed to submit an email request to ODE at daystohours@education.ohio.gov.
Home Instruction
ORC §3323.12 requires a board of education to provide home instruction for children with disabilities who are unable to attend school. The statute further clarifies that for the purpose of determining formula ADM, five hours of home instruction is equivalent to five school days. Relying in part on this statute, school districts sometimes place students temporarily on home instruction, and provide five hours of instruction each week to ensure full funding. However, ODE notes that unless an IEP expressly requires home instruction, students who receive home instruction for less than a full day, including special education students, must be reported in EMIS as attending part-time. These students may trigger a percentage reduction in funding as a result.
Senior Late Arrival and Early Release
For years, school districts have rewarded seniors who have completed most of their graduation requirements early with the option to arrive late or leave early from school each day. Beginning this summer, ODE indicated to districts that these students must be reported as attending school part-time. ODE recognized in the new guidance that districts may lose funding for the percentage of time the seniors are out of school because of late arrival or early release.
However, ODE also indicates that districts may apply for a waiver from the state superintendent that would allow them to count certain seniors who miss one period of class as fully enrolled, but only if those students take sufficiently rigorous courses. The guidance includes several examples of what would be considered “rigorous” for the waiver, such as when a student 1) takes two or more AP classes; 2) takes two courses through a dual enrollment program, or 3) completes a certain number of hours in an internship or apprenticeship program. A district that wishes to request this waiver/exemption should send the request along with a draft policy to daystohours@education.ohio.gov.
Work Release Programs
For work release, a district may count a student’s work time as instruction time if he/she participates in an official work study program or an approved educational option. However, if a student has been released for employment due to financial hardship, a district has two options:
1) The district may report the student as part-time and include only the hours the student actually attends class (this is required if the absence is for more than ten days); or
2) Under certain circumstances, the district can count the absence as an excused absence if in accordance with board policy and approved by the district’s superintendent as an emergency or some other circumstance considered “good and sufficient cause” for an absence from school. Under this option, the absence will not impact the school’s funding but will affect the attendance rate.
Zero Periods
The last exemption for FTE that was included in the guidance involves zero periods. A zero period occurs when a district offers an additional period of instruction that is optional for students. With regard to the zero period exception, ODE will permit a district to report a student as attending full-time if he/she attends a district-created optional instruction period/zero period but is released from a period later in the day.
If you would like to view ODE’s guidance on Annualized Full- Time Enrollment, click here.
LEGAL REFS: ORC 3313.533, 3317.03, 3321.04, 3323.12
by Pamela Leist | Jun 10, 2014 | Board Policy & Representation, General, Labor and Employment, School Management
Ohio legislators have once again modified the Ohio teacher evaluation system this month through passage of House Bill 362. The bill, which still awaits the Governor’s signature, reduces the frequency of evaluations for certain teachers and also creates an optional alternative evaluation framework that districts may elect to use as early as the 2014-2015 school year. Changes from the bill include the following.
First, HB 362 modified ORC 3319.111 by granting a board of education the discretionary authority to evaluate teachers who receive a rating of “Accomplished” on their most recent evaluations every three years. Likewise, Boards may also choose to evaluate “Skilled” teachers every two years. The law further specifies that in order to qualify for either of the above, a teacher must receive a student growth measure score of average or higher on the most recent evaluation (note that under the state-approved rubric, a teacher cannot receive a summative rating score of “Skilled” or “Accomplished” unless he or she received a SGM score that was average or higher). If a board elects either option, a credentialed evaluator must conduct at least one observation and hold at least one conference in each year that a teacher is not formally evaluated. The new law is silent as to whether a district must also gather student growth measure data in off years.
Additionally, the bill permits a board of education to elect not to evaluate teachers who have been on leave for at least fifty percent (50%) of the school year, and/or who have submitted a notice of retirement which has been accepted by the board no later than December 1st.
Finally, HB 362 establishes an alternative teacher evaluation framework under a new statute, ORC 3319.114. The alternative framework reduces the value of the teacher performance and student growth measure scores, and incorporates an additional measure derived from one of the following: student surveys, teacher self-evaluations, peer review evaluations, or student portfolios. The statute specifies that should a board elect to use the alternative framework for 2014-2015, a teacher’s final summative rating must be based on the following:
- 42.5% teacher performance rating;
- 42.5% student growth measure; and
- 15% from one of the additional measures listed above
For 2015-2016 and beyond, a school board has some discretion to determine the value of the three components. However, the teacher performance and student growth measures must each count for at least 42.5% of the score. And, the new law requires that an equal percentage of the final summative rating be allocated to teacher performance and student growth. The remaining percentage of the summative rating will be derived from the chosen alternative tool.
Under the new statute, the Ohio Department of Education must compile a list of approved instruments for districts to use with the alternative framework. School districts are required to select evaluation instruments from amongst that list.
As with previous OTES and OPES modifications, a number of questions remain about whether the changes will actually improve the process and ease the burden of evaluations for school administrators and teachers, or whether they will merely create additional traps that snare the unwary. One of the primary concerns is the fact that the bill will not become effective until mid-September, nearly one month after most districts begin the 2014-2015 school year. And, in order to roll out the new system by 2014-2015, the Department has only a few months to select alternative evaluation tools, and even less time to determine the validity of the data each tool captures. Finally, while the prospect of reducing the frequency of evaluations is enticing, this practice may weaken the validity of future evaluation results for teachers, which will ultimately impact a board of education’s ability to make solid employment decisions. For these reasons, districts should be cautious to embrace the new changes until additional analysis is conducted. In the least, districts should contact legal council before adopting evaluation policy changes for this upcoming school year.
To review HB 362 in its entirety, click here.
by Jeremy Neff | Jun 2, 2014 | Board Policy & Representation, Student Education and Discipline
As school children prepare for summer break, school administrators begin turning their attention to long-term projects that are deferred during the regular school year. Consider adding a review of your student disciplinary code to your summer to do list.
In January, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Department of Justice issued joint guidance regarding discipline and racial discrimination. Following that guidance, various disability advocacy groups pointed to disparities in discipline of disabled students as another problem area.
While intentional discrimination in schools is rare, disparate impact is almost universal. In the vast majority of school districts a greater percentage of expulsions and suspensions are imposed on minority and disabled students (relative to their percentage of the student body). OCR investigations related to this are on the rise, and a common issue being identified is that vague disciplinary codes make it hard to do apples-to-apples comparisons of discipline outcomes.
For example, Student A and Student B fight each other, but Student A gets 5 days suspension while Student B is suspended 10 days with a recommendation for expulsion. Both violated the same rule that prohibits “fighting.” On paper this looks problematic. Only by reviewing administrator narratives, or by OCR coming onsite to conduct interviews, does the explanation become clear: Student A stopped fighting immediately when directed by an administrator, while Student B cursed at and struck an administrator.
Consider refining your code of conduct to more precisely account for common scenarios such as the above. For example, “fighting” might be broken up into “fighting, ceased immediately upon directive” and “fighting, failed to cease immediately upon directive.” Likewise, “disruption” might be broken up into “disruption, verbal outburst,” “disruption, physical outburst,” etc. Upon inspection of your code of conduct and discipline records you will likely identify other rules that are too broad to capture important details of misconduct.
By making your code of conduct more precise, you will make it easier to explain differences in disciplinary outcomes. This is especially important when OCR is investigating disparate impact claims. This is a case where an ounce of prevention is worth much more than a pound of cure.
Please contact an ERF attorney for assistance with reviewing student codes of conduct and other disciplinary matters.
by Pamela Leist | Mar 31, 2014 | Board Policy & Representation, Labor and Employment, Legislation
The Ohio House Education Committee has unveiled sweeping changes to Substitute Senate Bill 229 with regard to teacher and principal evaluations. The original version of SB 229, which passed the Senate unanimously on December 4th, 2013, modified frequency and composition of teacher evaluations and reduced some of the burden on school administrators. The new version of the Bill proposed by the House Education Committee, however, would modify both the OTES and OPES evaluation systems in ways that would undoubtedly place additional strain on the relatively untested evaluation systems. The proposed changes include the following:
- Bumps student growth measures back up to 50% from the 35% proposed by the Senate, unless a district elects to use an alternative “student survey” framework (available for grades 4-12), in which case the final rating would be comprised of 40% SGM, 40% teacher performance rating, and 20% student survey results;
- Requires that an evaluator use an average score if a teacher receives different scores on the observations and review components of the evaluations;
- Increases SGM from three to five total possible ratings: “Most Effective”, “Above Average”, “Average”, “Below Average”, and “Least Effective”;
- Adds new performance level rating of “Effective” that will exist in the realm between “Skilled” and “Developing”;
- Requires that at least one formal observation of a teacher be unannounced;
- Beginning in 2015, allows districts to evaluate “Accomplished” and “Skilled” teachers every other year, but only if the teacher’s SGM score is rated “Average” or higher (teachers must still receive one observation and a conference in the “off” year);
- District can elect not to evaluate 1) a teacher who is on leave for 70% or more of the year, and 2)a teacher who submitted notice of retirement before Dec. 1st;
- Teachers rated “Effective” “Developing” or “Ineffective” must be placed on an improvement plan;
- In 2015 and beyond, districts cannot assign students to a teacher who has been rated ineffective for two or more years (but does not specify what a district should do with these teachers!);
- A district is also prohibited from assigning a student teacher to a teacher who is “Developing” or “Ineffective” during the previous year;
- If a teacher with at least ten years of experience receives a designation of either “Least Effective” or “Below Average” on his/her SGM rating, that teacher may be rated “Developing” only once;
- Mandates that results of an evaluation must follow the teacher even if he/she is transferred to a new building or takes employment elsewhere;
- Requires ODE to develop a standardized framework for assessing SGM for all non-value added grade levels and subjects by 2016;
- By 2016, districts must administer assessments to students in each of grades K-12 for English Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science. Assessments must be selected by ODE and based on value-added progress dimension or vendor-developed student growth measures (may include assessments already required by law);
- Beginning next July, evaluators must verify completion of at least one evaluation training course outlined in the bill;
- After July 1, 2015, the State Board must ensure individuals seeking licensure as superintendent, assistant superintendent, principal, vocational director, administrative specialist, or supervisor have completed a teacher evaluator training;
- The revised bill mandates that the State Board of Education must develop a standards based system for principals and assistant principals, which districts must conform to;
- Third grade reading guarantee assessments must either be value-added or vendor-approved assessments;
- ODE must provide detailed report of school performance on evaluations to general assembly, and must accept comments for improvement from districts that it passes on to general assembly;
- Exempts from collective bargaining all amendments made by the bill to 3319.111, 3319.112, 3319.113, 3319.114, 3319.115, and 3319.117;
- Permits a district to enter into a MOU with union that stipulates value-added progress demission rating issued for 2014-2015 will not be used when making decisions regarding dismissal, retention, tenure or compensation.
The substitute bill currently awaits approval in the House Education Committee before it will be sent to the full House for a vote. The bill will also need to be voted on again by the Senate before it proceeds to the governor for final signature. We will keep you posted on the progress of the bill, and also encourage clients to voice opposition to the drastic changes listed in the bill. To review the Legislative Service Commission’s comparison synopsis, click here.
by Erin Wessendorf-Wortman | Jan 10, 2014 | Board Policy & Representation, General, Labor and Employment, School Management
The State Employment Relations Board (SERB) upheld the clear and unambiguous language of R.C. §3319.111, holding that school districts may implement a new teacher evaluation policy in line with OTES without negotiating with their teachers association when the applicable collective bargaining agreement naturally expires.
The Parma Education Association filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Parma City School District Board of Education alleging that the Board of Education violated the collective bargaining agreement and collective bargaining laws when the Board of Education unilaterally implemented a new teacher evaluation procedure while the parties were in negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement and the current agreement had expired.
SERB indicated that school districts are not typically allowed to make changes to the terms and conditions of employment during negotiations of an expired collective bargaining agreement. However, if laws specifically indicate that they supersede the collective bargaining rights outlined in Chapter 4117 of the Revised Code, then a school district may follow the specifics of the law. In this case, R.C. §3319.111 specifically states that teacher evaluation procedures supersede Chapter 4117 of the Revised Code and any conflicting terms of a collective bargaining agreement when the existing collective bargaining agreement naturally expires.
The Board of Education did not violate the rights of the Parma Education Association. The Board of Education acted within its legal rights when it unilaterally implemented its teacher evaluation policy and procedures once its current collective bargaining expired, even though it was negotiating a successor collective bargaining agreement.
SERB’s decision appears obvious based on the clear, unambiguous language of the statute, but this decision is important to highlight the management rights given to boards of education in establishing teacher evaluation policies and procedures through the House Bill 153 and Senate Bill 316 changes to R.C. §3319.111.
by Gary Stedronsky | Dec 11, 2012 | Board Policy & Representation
It’s the time of year when boards of education begin preparing for their annual organizational meetings. City, local, exempted village and JVS districts must hold their organizational meetings by January 15th. Educational Service Centers have until January 31st. Here are a few tips to keep in mind as you prepare for your organizational meeting.
- An organizational meeting is a regular meeting of the board of education. There is no need to hold the organizational meeting separate from your regular board meeting.
- Any member of the board can call the organizational meeting to order. Next, appoint a member to preside until the officers are elected. The former president is always a good choice if he or she remains on the board.
- Must elect a president and vice president, whose terms are for one year. A majority vote of the full board is needed for election. It is permissible for members to nominate and vote for themselves. Once elected, the new president should preside over the remainder of the meeting.
- Administration of the oath is only necessary for those who are beginning their term. The treasurer, any current board member, an elected official whose office has jurisdiction over the territory of the school district (such as a mayor or city council member), a notary public and any member of the General Assembly can administer the oath.
- Must establish the date and time for the regular meetings that are to be held throughout the remainder of the calendar year. It is permissible for a board of education to later change the date of its meetings. However, regular meetings must be held at least once every two months.
