by Pamela Leist | Nov 13, 2015 | General, Legislation
House Bill 64 directed the State Board of Education to develop standards for the evaluation of school guidance counselors. Just last week, the Ohio Standards for School Counselors were approved by the State Board. The standards-based framework for counselor evaluations must still be developed by the State Board of Education by May 31, 2016.By September 30, 2016, each school district board of education must adopt a school counselor evaluation policy in accordance with the framework and state law. The policy must reflect the implementation of the framework beginning with the 2016-2017 school year, and procedures for using the evaluation results beginning with the 2017-2018 school year.This will be an important subject for collective bargaining with teachers unions for the ensuing contract year.
Section 3319.61 of the Ohio Revised Code sets forth the requirements for the standards.The standards as approved by the State Board of Education and released last week outline the roles and responsibilities of school counselors, in general, and there are a total of six (6) standards upon which guidance counselors are to be evaluated. Those standardsare: comprehensive school counseling program plan; direct services for academic, career and social/emotional development; indirect services including partnerships and referrals; evaluation and data; leadership and advocacy; and professional responsibility, knowledge and growth.
Each standard as adopted contains the overarching goal and theme that provides a framework for effective practices, a narrative summary, and elements that define the various skills and characteristics that demonstrate effectiveness within the standard. Each element has an indicator which is an observable or measurable statement that provides evidence of the standard and the elements in action.
Click here for Ohio Standards for School Counselors
by Pamela Leist | Nov 3, 2015 | Board Policy & Representation, General, School Management
The Ohio Attorney General’s office recently issued an opinion that concluded a deputy sheriff who is employed in classified service may simultaneously serve as a member of a city or local school district board of education with a few limitations. The opinion was released on October 27th, 2015. The question of law turned on an interpretation of Ohio Revised Code §124.57(A), which states that an officer or employee in the classified service of the state or a public municipality is prohibited from 1) receiving any contribution for a political party or candidate for public office; 2) being an officer in any political party; or 3) taking part in politics other than to vote.
In analyzing the issue, the drafter of the opinion relied on a seven-question test to determine whether the two public positions were compatible. The test includes the following:
1. Is either of the positions considered classified employment within the terms of R.C. §124.57?
2. Do the empowering statutes of either position limit employment in another public position or the holding of another public office?
3. Is one position subordinate to, or in any way a check upon the other?
4. Is it physically possible for one person to discharge the duties of both positions?
5. Is there an impermissible conflict of interest between the two positions?
6. Are there local charter provisions, resolutions, or ordinances which are controlling?
7. Is there a federal, state, or local departmental regulation applicable?
The first question about whether a deputy sheriff serves as classified staff was answered in the affirmative, unless the deputy is assigned special duties which alter his or her status as a classified employee. In analyzing the second question, since a board of education member is elected in a nonpartisan election, and no other laws expressly prohibit a sheriff from serving as a board member or vice versa, the Attorney General opined that a deputy sheriff may lawfully run for the position subject to a few limitations discussed more fully below. And, in review of the third question, the opinion concluded that the deputy’s position in particular was not really subordinate to the board of education even when that deputy served as the district’s DARE officer, since the county sheriff and not the board generally determined specific duties and assignments. The opinion quickly dispensed with any concerns about whether an individual could physically perform the duties of both jobs under the fourth question, again affirming there was no issue as long as the deputy was able to serve on the board through use of leave or some other means when he/she was simultaneously assigned to active duty as a deputy.
However, when analyzing the fifth question in the test, the opinion concluded there was the potential for a number of conflicts of interest to arise when the individual carried out his or her duties as deputy and board member. First, there is a potential conflict of interest in preparation of and submission of budgets to the county commissioner, since the county sheriff and the board of education may compete for limited funds. This conflict could be avoided as long as the member did not appear before the county commissioner for budget matters on behalf of either organization. Second, the attorney general also recognized a potential conflict in the event both the sheriff and the board of education sought levies. However, the opinion recognized that the chance for conflict was low, and further could be avoided as long as the individual did not participate in any board member discussions, deliberations, and votes concerning the levy. Third, the opinion notes there is a potential conflict when the deputy is required to investigate an employee or member of the board of education, which can be avoided by reassigning the investigation to another deputy or another law enforcement agent. Fourth, there could be a conflict when contracts are negotiated between the board and the sheriff’s office. Again as long as the deputy refrains from any board deliberations about the contract, and as long as the deputy is not assigned to serve the board through the contract, the conflict is avoidable. Finally, the deputy may avoid any conflict with regard to allocation of trust fund grants such as through the D.A.R.E. program as long as the deputy is not a part of the internal control policy that determines how money is allocated.
The answers to the sixth and final questions in the test mentioned above were in the negative, since there were no applicable state or local regulations that applied in this case. Therefore, as long as the deputy avoided the potential conflicts mentioned above, the attorney general concluded that the positions of deputy sheriff and board of education member were compatible. In closing, however, the author of the opinion recognized that it may be impossible to consider all possible conflicts that could arise. Should the board member find that he or she must frequently refrain from deliberations, it is possible the member will eventually have a duty to resign from one position.
Click here to review the opinion in full.
Ohio Attorney General Opinion No. 2015-032.
by Giselle Spencer | Sep 25, 2015 | Board Policy & Representation, Construction & Real Estate, General, Labor and Employment, Legislation, School Finance, School Management, Special Education, Student Education and Discipline
As with most other provisions of the budget bill (Am. Sub. HB 64) some significant provisions impacting Ohio school districts go into effect on September 29, 2015, including the following:
- The maximum amount of a scholarship awarded under the Autism or Jon Peterson scholarship programs increases to $27,000 (up from $20,000).
- School districts must offer real property it intends to sell first to a “high performing community school,” then to other community and college preparatory boarding schools located in the district.
- ODE, in conjunction with an Ohio educational service center association and an Ohio gifted children’s association, must complete and submit a feasibility study for establishment of sixteen regional community schools for gifted children.
- The State Board must develop rules waiving any additional coursework requirements for renewal of an educator license for teachers who are consistently high performing.
- The duration of a pupil activity permit for individuals holding a valid educator license is changed from three (3) years to the same number of years as the educator license.
- The State Board of Education will develop a standards based framework for the evaluation of school counselors. Furthermore, all school districts must adopt a counselor evaluation policy by September 30, 2016, that conforms to the framework and will be implemented beginning in the 2016-2017 school year (will include annual evaluations with ratings of accomplished, skilled, developing, and ineffective just like OTES).
- The alternative teacher evaluation framework is revised to decrease SGM to 35%, maintain the performance rating at 50%, and authorize school districts to determine the appropriate measure or combination of measures for the remaining 15%.
- Exemplary community schools may now operate a preschool program for general education students.
- School districts may enroll under interdistrict open enrollment policies an adjacent or other district student who is a preschool child with a disability. ODE will deduct $4,000 from the resident district and pay that same amount to the enrolling district.
- School districts cannot appropriate monies to purchase an assessment developed by PARCC for use as the state elementary or secondary achievement assessments. Additionally testing for the 2015-2016 school year is reduced.
- Safe harbor provisions in effect during the 2014-2015 school year for state report cards are extended by two years.
- School districts may now enter into a contract with a health care provider for the provision of health care services for students.
- The new requirements for issuance of diplomas to home school students and students from non-chartered nonpublic schools are now in effect.
STEM schools can now enroll out-of-state students.
- Schools may install security doors or barricades as part of an emergency management plan.
- The filing date for financial disclosure statements with the Ohio Ethics Commission is May 15 (instead of April 15).
by Pamela Leist | May 11, 2015 | General
As building principals finalize this school year and begin to plan out their required drills for the 2015-2016 school year, they should make note of recent changes to the number and type of drills that are now required under state law. House Bill 178, which codified recent changes, passed both houses of the legislature and was signed into law in the final days of 2014. It became effective March 23, 2015.
Drills or Rapid Dismissals
While the number of certain types of drills has changed, all district schools will still be required to complete nine overall drills, rapid dismissals, or school safety drills per school year. For most schools with newer infrastructure, HB 178 reduces the number of regular drills or rapid dismissals required for schools to six, but increases the number of safety drills that must be performed from one to three for a total of nine. If a school does not have smoke detectors or a sprinkler system in all classroom buildings, the drills/dismissals must be conducted at least nine times during the school year. However, the new law permits schools that fall in to this second category to count the three safety drills toward the nine required. Additionally, instruction regarding tornado warning precautions must still be provided in conjunction with the drills/rapid dismissals, and tornado drills must be conducted at least once per month during tornado season (April 1- July 31).
School Safety Drills
As indicated above, the bill increases the number of safety drills, such as lockdowns and evacuations, from one drill to three safety drills per school year. Safety drills provide students with instruction in responding to situations in which students must either rapidly evacuate or be secured in the building in response to a threat caused by an act of violence. The law mandates that at least one of these three drills require students to be secured in the building. The new law also requires that each of these three drills be planned and executed in conjunction with “the police chief or other similar chief law enforcement officer, or designee, of the municipal corporation, township, or township or joint police district in which the school or institution is located, or, in absence of any such person, the county sheriff of the county, or designee, in which the school or institution is located.” Principals must continue to provide law enforcement with 72 hours advanced written notice of the safety drills. The safety drills must also be conducted pursuant to the school’s emergency management plan. HB 178 removed the December 1st deadline for completing a school safety drill.
Theoretical School Safety Drill
Schools must also conduct one staff safety planning exercise, called a theoretical school safety drill, at some point during the school year in addition to the safety drills mentioned above. The purpose of this planning exercise is to provide staff and faculty with instruction regarding procedures to be followed in response to a threat of violence. The planning exercise does not require student participation and may be completed during the annual school safety drill training session required under ORC 3737.73(D)(3).
Timing of Drills
At least one drill/rapid dismissal or school safety drill must be conducted every month of the school year. Additionally, the first drill or rapid dismissal must be within 10 days of the start of classes, and drills/rapid dismissals must be conducted at varied times of the day.
Documentation Requirements
Principals are still required to keep documentation of the date and time of each drill conducted. The deadline for providing this documentation to law enforcement from the prior school year has not changed (December 5th each year), but what documentation must be submitted has changed. Under the new law, principals must provide both the date and time of each school safety drill conducted during the previous school year, and the date and time each drill will be conducted during the current school year. The law expanded the options for submitting this document to include not only regular mail, but also facsimile or electronic submission.
The Department of Commerce created a Technical Bulletin with FAQ about the new requirement titled “Drills or Rapid Dismissals and School Safety Drills.” You can access the bulletin at the following web address: https://saferschools.ohio.gov/sites/default/files/HB178-TB15-001%20-%20FAQ%20-%20final.pdf
by Pamela Leist | Apr 24, 2015 | General
On April 13th, 2015, the State Board of Education voted to amend a rule which previously mandated that school districts employ a minimum number of elementary art, music and physical education teachers, as well as a minimum number of nurses, library media specialists, social workers and visiting teachers. The standard was commonly referred to as the “5 of 8 rule,” and was originally adopted in 1983. The rule specifically required schools to have at least five of the eight positions mentioned above for every 1,000 enrolled students.
Members of the State Board had considered elimination of the rule for a number of years before passing a resolution on December 9th to formally reconsider it. The State Board conducted a public hearing before it voted on April 13th to officially amend the rule. On that day, the State Board rejected a proposal to refer the rule back to committee for further review before passing the final resolution to amend.
The new rule adopted by the State Board provides school districts with much more discretion to determine what the appropriate number of these positions may be. The rule, codified in OAC 3301-35-03, as amended states “[t]he local board of education shall be responsible for the scope and type of educational services in the district. The district shall employ educational service personnel to enhance the learning opportunities of all students. Educational service personnel assigned to elementary fine arts, music and physical education shall hold the special teaching certificate or multi-age license in the subject to which they are assigned.”
Opponents of the rule change argued that schools may use the new rule to eliminate important programs such as art and music, especially in lower income districts with high numbers of poor and minority students. However, many districts and proponents view the change as an opportunity to provide school administrators with more autonomy and control over staffing and programming. School administrators believe that they can more effectively tailor the programs to the unique needs of a particular school through the new rule.
The amended rule became effective on April 24th, 2015. You may view copies of both the new and old versions of OAC 3301-35-03 at http://www.registerofohio.state.oh.us.
by Erin Wessendorf-Wortman | Mar 26, 2015 | General, Labor and Employment
In a decision issued March 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act mandated that employers must provide accommodations to pregnant employees when needed if the employer provides accommodations to other employees with similar work restrictions. Young v. United Parcel Service, No. 12-1226 (Mar. 25, 2015).
In the underlying case, Ms. Young was a part-time driver for United Parcel Service (UPS) who was advised by her doctor, when she became pregnant, that she could not lift more than 20 pounds. UPS required drivers to be able to lift up to 70 pounds. UPS informed Ms. Young that she could not work while under a lifting restriction, and refused to provide Ms. Young with an accommodation for her pregnancy-related lifting restriction. Ms. Young consequently stayed home without pay during most of her pregnancy, eventually lost her employee medical coverage, and sued UPS alleging violations of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court, though sending the case back to the trial court, held that policies may have the effect of discriminating against pregnant workers if the policies treat pregnant women different than similarly situated non-pregnant workers. For example, if a policy only permits on-the-job injured workers with accommodations, but does not provide pregnant workers with accommodations even though the pregnant workers have the same restrictions, the policy will run afoul of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Employers should be cautious when applying policy to ensure that the effects of the policy are not discriminatory towards pregnant workers.
This decision should be read in conjunction with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidance regarding pregnant employees that was released on July 14, 2014. This guidance was discussed in Ennis Britton’s September 2014 School Law Review Newsletter. Together, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision and the Guidance from the EEOC serve as reminders to employers that pregnancy conditions may be protected, and employers may be required to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions.
