by Erin Wessendorf-Wortman | Jun 30, 2014 | General, Legislation
House Bill 487, the mid-biennium education bill, reviewed in last month’s ERF School Law Review newsletter, was signed into law on June 16, 2014. Except as indicated otherwise in the statute, HB 487 becomes effective September 15, 2014. Some of the upcoming changes in the law include the following:
- College and Work-Ready Assessment System-
- For students entering the 9th grade on or after July 1, 2014, the OGT requirement will be replaced by the College and Work-Ready Assessments System, which is comprised of two assessments:
- (1) Nationally standardized assessment measuring college and career readiness and
- (2) End-of-Course Exams.
- High School Graduation Requirements-
- For students entering the 9th grade on or after July 1, 2014, the OGT is no longer a requirement for graduation.
- Instead, students must meet one of the following options:
- (1) Score at “remediation-free” levels in English, math, and reading on the nationally standardized assessment;
- (2) Obtain a minimum cumulative performance score on end-of-course exams; or
- (3) Obtain a passing score on a nationally recognized job skills assessment andobtain either an industry-recognized credential or a state agency- or board-issued license for practice in a specific vocation.
- Statewide Curriculum Requirements-
- Extends exemption from the Ohio core curriculum requirements for graduation (now referred to solely as “requirements for graduation”) until July 1, 2016
- For students entering 9th grade for the first time on or after July 1, 2014 (Class of 2018), in addition to the current requirements, the following changes must be satisfied for the exemption to apply:
- The student has a Student Success Plan (previously called “individual career plan”) and
- The student meets the other graduation requirements, including the following curricular changes:
- 4 units of math (instead of 3 under current law),
- One must be probability and statistics, computer programming, applied mathematics, quantitative reasoning, or any other course approved by ODE before October 1, 2014;
- 5 elective units (instead of 6 under current law); and
- 3 units of science which are inquiry-based laboratory experience that engage students in asking valid scientific questions and gathering and analyzing information.
- Third-Grade Reading Guarantee-
- Allows school districts to submit an alternative staffing plan for the 2014-2015 or 2015-2016 school years if the school district is unable to provide the number of teachers who meet the criteria needed to teach 3rd grade students below grade level.
- Establishes the English-language arts assessment to be administered to 3rd graders during the 2014-2015 school year:
- Fall- Same assessment administered during the 2013-2014 school year;
- Spring-
- For students who failed to obtain the minimum score on the assessment and would be subject to retention—same assessment administered during the 2013-2014 school year; and
- For students who have obtained the needed minimum score and would not be subject to retention—the PARCC assessment.
- Online Administration of Assessments-
- For the 2014-2015 school year, school districts are not required to administer assessments through an online format.
- School districts have the option to administer the assessments in any combination of online and paper format.
- Safe Harbor for the 2014-2015 School Year-
- School districts may enter into an MOU with the teachers’ union stating that the value-added progress dimension score from the 2014-2015 school year will not be used to make decisions about teacher dismissal, retention, tenure, or compensation.
- Prohibits various penalties and sanctions due to a school district’s report card rating.
- Prohibits from assigning an overall letter grade to schools and school districts.
- Emergency Management Plan-
- Changes the name of School Safety Plan to Emergency Management Plan.
- Requires the administrator of a school district to develop and adopt a comprehensive Emergency Management Plan including a floor plan, site plan, and emergency contact information, as well as protocols for threats and emergency events.
- “Administrator” means superintendent, principal, chief administrative officer, or other person having supervisory authority over the school district.
- Requires the administrator to review and certify the accuracy of the plan to ODE by July 1st of each year.
- In addition to current requirements, the plan must be updated whenever the emergency contact information changes.
- Requires the administrator to schedule an annual emergency management test.
- “Emergency management test” means a regularly scheduled drill, exercise, or activity designed to assess and evaluate the Emergency Management Plan.
- The State Board must adopt standardized rules and standardized forms for Emergency Management Plans.
- Because it is unlikely that the State Board will have adopted rules and standardized forms prior to the effective date of September 15, 2014, the expectations for the 2014-2015 school year are unclear at this time.
- Career-Technical Education-
- Expands requirement to provide career-technical education to students in grades 7-12.
- If a Board of Education decides not to provide career-technical education for students enrolled in grades 7-8 in a particular school year, the Board must adopt a resolution and submit it to ODE by September 30th of that school year.
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 Pamela Leist | Feb 10, 2014 | General, Legislation
The Ohio House of Representatives and Ohio Senate are both considering bills to ease the burden on Ohio school districts that have taken an unusual number of calamity days this school year due to harsh winter conditions.
One of the pending bills, House Bill 416, was proposed on January 28th. It would grant four additional calamity days to schools for the 2013-2014 school year. Districts would therefore be excused for a total of nine calamity days. HB 416 passed the House Education Committee on January 30th, and currently awaits a vote in the full House before it heads to the Senate floor.
Senate Bill 269 was also proposed on January 28th. The senate bill would likewise grant districts three additional calamity days, for a total of eight excused days. The bill currently remains in the Senate Education Committee. Governor Kasich has encouraged the Senate and House to pass legislation to extend calamity days for this school year, and is expected to sign whichever bill is voted through the legislature.
In addition to possible extension of calamity days under HB 416 and SB 269, Senator Randy Gardner recently introduced Senate Bill 273 on February 6th. If passed, the bill would excuse graduating seniors from any calamity make-up days that a district would schedule to take place after graduation. Seniors would still be required to make up days that occur prior to graduation, however.
All the proposed bills are considered emergency measures, and will take effect immediately if passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor.
UPDATE: On February 19th, 2014 the Ohio House passed a revised version of HB 416. If the bill passes in the Senate and is signed by the governor, it would grant schools two additional calamity days for this school year. In addition, the bill would permit schools to schedule two additional staff in-service days for both teachers and nonteaching employees. Finally, HB 416 would re-codify a school district’s ability to make up missed time by increasing the length of one or more school days by half hour increments. Districts used to have the authority to make up time under certain circumstances by extending the school day pursuant to ORC 3313.482, but that statute was repealed effective September 29th, 2013 along with the requirement that schools adopt a yearly contingency plan.
A new bill was also introduced in the Senate on February 19th that would grant additional calamity waivers under certain conditions. Specifically SB 284 provides four additional calamity days to schools, but only after each district satisfies both of the following:
- The reason the school was not open for the required number of days was, pursuant to ORC 3317.01 (version in effect prior to July 1, 2014), due to “disease epidemic, hazardous weather conditions, law enforcement emergencies, inoperability of school buses or other equipment necessary to the school’s operation, damage to a school building, or other temporary circumstances due to utility failure rendering the school building unfit for school use”; and
- The district has first completed make-up days or hours specified in the district’s contingency plan.
Under prior law, a district’s contingency plan accounted for make-up of at least five additional calamity days. Boards were required to approve this year’s contingency plan before the statute was repealed. Because of the inconsistency with current law, SB 284 also includes a provision that recognizes a board’s authority to modify the district contingency plan. In addition, SB 284 again grants schools the authority to make up days by half hour increments. Finally, the bill would excuse graduating seniors from make-up days scheduled to take place after graduation.
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 Jeremy Neff | Feb 25, 2013 | Legislation
Earlier this month spreadsheets were released that showed anticipated funding for each school district under Governor Kasich’s budget proposal. These revealed that a majority of districts will not experience any increase in funding. Questions have arisen regarding how the districts were chosen that will receive increases. Representatives of the Governor defended his plan in General Assembly hearings, and a group of senators introduced a competing school funding reform plan. It has been a busy month for school funding, and realistically the issue will likely remain in flux at least through the end of June and the adoption of a state budget.
The Governor and his staff caution that what appears to be “wealthy” districts receiving increases and “impoverished” districts being flat-funded is simply a reflection of rural property values increasing in recent years, while suburban values have decreased. Moreover, they point to guarantee funding as something that has artificially inflated funding in some impoverished districts that have lost student population. They argue that by effectively leveling up each district’s per pupil property valuation the Governor’s plan helps close the gaps between “rich” and “poor” districts. The Governor’s staff has testified that there was no intention in his plan to determine what is required for a quality education, or what a quality education would actually cost.
Critics of the Governor’s plan are concerned that most districts do not see increased funding, and some of those that receive increases are not the impoverished districts that initially were thought to benefit most from the plan. They further argue that the economy is turning around but the Governor’s plan fails to bring funding back up to the level maintained before Governor Kasich took office – this despite a sizeable budget surplus. They also point to a reduction in the state “foundation amount” to only $5,000. They argue that by reducing the foundation amount, and remarking that the guarantee is unsustainable, the Governor is opening the door to significant funding cuts in the future.
An alternative school funding plan – Senate Bill 15 – was introduced in the Senate on February 12. This plan is similar to the reforms endorsed several years ago by all of the major education organizations (e.g. OSBA, OASBO, BASA, OESCA, PTA, OEA, OFT, OAPSE). SB 15 requires the General Assembly to identify the components of a Constitutional education system and to cost them out. Every 6 years the components would be reevaluated, and in between the costs would be adjusted for inflation. Every district would be funded at the level required to provide these components. The local share, or charge off, for this funding level would be decreased over a span of several years. The major concepts of SB 15 would be placed before Ohio voters for approval in the November 2013 general election. No spreadsheets are available for SB 15 because it describes a concept for determining funding, but does not specify funding levels.
Because Governor Kasich’s proposal is part of the state budget it will be thoroughly considered by the General Assembly. In all likelihood the budget will not be finalized until late June. Nonetheless, many important votes will take place well in advance of June so school officials should provide input to their legislators sooner rather than later. SB 15, on the other hand, is unlikely to receive serious consideration unless legislators hear from their constituents that a different plan from the Governors must be considered.
