by Pamela Leist | Sep 26, 2019 | Board Policy & Representation, General, Labor and Employment, Legislation, School Management
The Sixth District Court of Appeals delivered a win to school districts recently when it reversed a lower court’s decision ordering the Perkins Local School District to reinstate a former teacher who had been terminated with an award of $367,202.52 in lost wages and benefits. The case was brought by former teacher and coach Tracey Hiss. Hiss was terminated for cause after the district learned she supplied several members of her girls track team with Lidoderm patches – prescription patches containing lidocaine that help with pain relief.
When the superintendent learned of the allegations, he met with Hiss and subsequently placed her on paid leave pending further investigation. He also reported the allegations to the police, who subsequently charged her with a minor misdemeanor for her actions. The district held a pre-disciplinary hearing and the superintendent sent notice of his intent to recommend termination. Hiss, through legal counsel, objected to some of the reasons listed in the notice because they had not been addressed at the pre-disciplinary hearing. The superintendent subsequently held another pre-disciplinary hearing and again recommended termination which the board approved. Hiss requested a hearing to challenge the board’s intent to terminate before a state appointed referee. At the termination hearing, Hiss introduced evidence of an incident where a prior coach, Crabtree, had given a student Tylenol to help reduce pain. She argued that the board should not have terminated her contract due to the fact that this teacher merely received a reprimand and a brief suspension from coaching, where she was being terminated.
After conclusion of the five-day hearing, the referee issued his report and recommendation that the board terminate Hiss’s teaching contract. In making this recommendation, the referee found that the board had sufficient policies prohibiting teachers from both possessing and distributing controlled substances and medicines to students without a parent’s permission.
Shortly thereafter, the Board adopted the referee’s recommendation and passed a resolution to terminate Hiss’s teaching contract. Hiss then appealed this decision to the common pleas court. The court applied the Daughtry test of good and just cause, concluding that the board lacked cause to terminate Hiss’s contract. The court focused in particular on the fact that Crabtree, who had engaged in similar behavior, received a much less severe discipline. The district appealed, claiming in part that the court of common pleas abused its discretion in applying this new test and effectively usurping the role of the ODE referee.
On appeal, the Sixth District Court of Appeals agreed that the court of common pleas abused its discretion when it substituted its own judgement in place of the board of education. The court of appeals concluded that the court’s reliance on the Daugherty test to define “good and just cause” was misplaced. The court reasoned that, while an arbitrator may use the Daugherty test to determine the standard of good and just cause in a labor-arbitration matter, the Ohio Supreme Court has failed to adopt the Daugherty test in just cause teacher termination cases. Thus, the common pleas court exceeded its authority by relying on the Daugherty test as opposed to the cases interpreting R.C. 3319.16 as to whether good or just cause exists.
Examining the merits of the case, the court also determined that Hiss’s misconduct was , a “fairly serious matter” that falls within the realm of good and just cause for termination under R.C. 3319.16. Hiss repeatedly gave prescription pain medicine to students in direct violation of district policy that could have ultimately caused serious harm to the students. The court opined that this added to the fact that the board of education complied with procedural requirements of R.C. 3319.16 by providing Hiss with two informal hearings as well as a hearing before the referee justified the board’s decision to terminate. Therefore, the board’s earlier decision to terminate Hiss’s teaching contract was reinstated.
by Giselle Spencer | Aug 16, 2019 | Board Policy & Representation, General, Labor and Employment, Legislation, School Finance, School Management
The Ohio Attorney General’s Office recently released an opinion in response to a request for legal advice on the issue of arming school staff. The letter requested, among other things, an analysis on how the training requirements under R.C. 109.78(D) apply to school employees authorized by the board of education to carry or possess a deadly weapon on school property under R.C. 2923.122(A).
R.C. 109.78(D) in full provides:
“(D) No public or private educational institution or superintendent of the State Highway Patrol shall employ a special police officer, security guard, or other position in which such person goes armed while on duty, who has not received a certificate of having satisfactorily completed an approved basic police officer training program, unless the person has completed twenty years of active duty as a police officer.”
As noted, R.C. 2923.122(A) prohibits any person from knowingly conveying, or attempting to convey, a deadly weapon into a school safety zone. However, there is a specific exception set out in R.C. 2923.122(D)(1)(a) which excludes any other person from this prohibition:
“who has written authorization from the board of education or governing body of a school to convey deadly weapons… in a school safety zone or to possess a deadly weapon… in a school safety zone and who convey or possesses the deadly weapon… in accordance with that authorization.”
The letter sought advice on whether or not a school employee who has been authorized to carry a deadly weapon by the board of education under R.C. 2923.122(D)(1)(a) is subject to the training requirements of R.C. 109.78(D). The Attorney General’s Office reiterated their argument laid out in their amicus brief in the appeal of Gabbard v. Madison Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. The court in that case concluded that school employees authorized by the board of education to carry firearms on school premises were not subject to the training requirements of R.C. 109.78(D) because they were not employed by the district in a security capacity. The Attorney General’s Office agreed and opined that in order to determine which provision outlined above is applicable to an employee hired by a school district, we must analyze whether the individual is employed in a role comparable to that of a security guard or police officer. In doing so, we must look to the person’s job title along with the duties and responsibilities assigned to them.
If an employee is hired by the district in a security capacity, then they are subject to the training requirements expressed in R.C. 109.78(D). (I.e. approved basic training police program, or twenty years active duty of a police officer). However, any other employee hired by a school district who does not serve in such a role, i.e. teacher, principal, custodian, and who is authorized by the board to carry or possess a firearm under R.C. 2923.122(D)(1)(a), is not subject to the training requirements of R.C. 109.78(D).
by Jeremy Neff | Jun 24, 2019 | General, Legislation, Student Education and Discipline
The use of restraint and seclusion in schools continues to be a high priority for state and federal policy makers. Ohio’s first regulations specifically addressing restraint, seclusion, and positive behavior intervention and supports took effect in 2013 as Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3301-35-15. In June 2018, the General Assembly passed House Bill (HB) 318, also known as “the SAFE Act”. This law addresses a variety of student discipline issues, including a requirement to rewrite Ohio’s restraint and seclusion regulations.
Ohio Administrative Code 3301-35-15 was due for review by August 2018, but the process has not been completed. HB 318 set a deadline for revision of OAC 3301-35-15 by early February 2019. Again, no revisions were made. However, work is ongoing at the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) and various stakeholder groups are being presented with draft rule revisions this summer. It is anticipated that in the coming months, there will be a proposed rule presented for public comment and consideration by the State Board of Education.
In the meantime, existing requirements for the use of restraint and seclusion remain in place. This includes absolute restrictions on certain practices, and significant data tracking and reporting requirements. The summer “break” is a good time for administrators to review existing training programs, plan for which staff members may require additional training due to student assignments and program changes, and review reporting data for the recently completed school year to determine if there are any patterns or gaps that need to be addressed.
While the use of restraint and seclusion generally should be rare, consistent reports of zero incidents may raise a red flag. A recent report from the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that nine of the nation’s 30 largest school districts reported no incidents of restraint or seclusion in the last reported year (2015-2016). The GAO and U.S. Department of Education presume that such reports are inaccurate, with the GAO reporting that, “We are encouraged that Education recognizes the seriousness of this issue and the data quality issues it has allowed to persist when districts inappropriately and inaccurately report zero incidents of restraint and seclusion.”
In addition to whatever new requirements might be rolled out by the U.S. Department of Education to address its concerns, long-proposed federal legislation is expected to be reintroduced later this year. The bill, called the “Keeping All Students Safe Act,” is likely to overlap significantly with Ohio’s restraint and seclusion regulations.
by Pamela Leist | Mar 30, 2018 | Labor and Employment, Legislation
The Ohio House of Representatives is expected to vote on a bill that would create a license for individuals to serve as substitute pupil services personnel. HB 491 passed in the House Education and Career Readiness Committee on March 21 by a vote of 16-0. The bill enacts a new section of the Revised Code (3319.2210) that would require the state board of education to issue a substitute license to individuals who meet certain criteria and wish to serve as substitutes in the following positions:
- Speech language pathologists
- Audiologists
- Registerd nurses
- Physical therapists
- Physical therapist assistants
- Occupational therapists
- Occupational therapist assistants
- Social workers
The current version of HB 491 would require the superintendent to request and recommend an individual for the new license. Any candidate who wishes to obtain the license must submit both a copy of a valid occupational license as well as all materials necessary to complete a criminal background check. The license may include a term of 1–5 years as determined by the state board. The state board is prohibited from requiring any additional qualifications beyond those listed in the statute. A school district may only hire a substitute license holder in a substitute capacity.
The Ohio House will meet again during the second week in April, when it is expected to vote on this bill.
by Pamela Leist | Dec 28, 2017 | Legislation
HB 170 provides the option for secondary schools to offer instruction in computer science. After the bill passed in the House, the Senate amended it, and the House then reviewed and agreed to the changes. Gov. Kasich signed the bill on December 22.
Model curriculum
The bill requires the State Board of Education to adopt academic content standards and a model curriculum for computer science for grades K–12, including standards for introductory and advanced computer science courses in grades 9–12. Any school district or school may use these standards and curriculum, or any part of them, but no school would be required to use them in whole or in part.
Units of instruction
A unit of computer science may be substituted for a unit of math or science but may not take the place of biology or life science courses. Advanced computer science may take the place of algebra II. However, the district must inform the student and his or her parents that secondary institutes may require completion of algebra II as a prerequisite to admission. Parents must sign a statement acknowledging that not taking algebra II may have an adverse effect on college admission. Career-tech students are still permitted to complete a career-based pathway mathematics course in lieu of algebra II or computer science.
Teacher licensure
Schools may employ only individuals who are licensed in computer science or those who have a license endorsement in computer technology and a passing score on a computer science content exam to teach computer science courses. Additionally, licensed educators who qualify for a supplemental teaching license for computer science may teach computer science courses; these educators may advance to a standard educator license, after teaching computer science for at least two years, by completing a pedagogy course in the applicable grade level.
To teach advanced placement computer science courses, the educator must complete a professional development program endorsed or provided by the organization that creates and administers national advanced placement exams.
Fund
School boards may establish a computer science and technology fund to support computer science programs and professional development. The fund may include district or school funding, private funding, and future state funding, as long as these funds may legally be used for this purpose and are not designated for something else. This fund may be used for professional development, online assessments including instruction and data that support these assessments, wireless connectivity, network services, computer equipment purchases, and leveraging or matching additional private donations.
Auxiliary services funding
Private, nonreligious charter schools are permitted but not required to receive auxiliary services funding directly rather than from the local school district. In this case, these schools may contract with the local districts for certain health, support, scoring, and security services for which the funding may be used. After the end of each biennium, if the funding was insufficient, these schools may apply to ODE for funds to make up the difference.
by Bronston McCord | Dec 8, 2017 | Legislation, School Management
The Senate Education Committee has announced a fourth hearing on Senate Bill 216 to be held on Wednesday, December 13, at 9:45 a.m. in the North Hearing Room of the Senate Building in Columbus. The time of the meeting has been changed to allow for a longer meeting, as a large volume of testimony is expected. A number of school superintendents have provided testimony at previous hearings. It is rumored that the Education Committee Chair, Sen. Peggy Lehner, is opposed to at least some of the bill provisions. If the bill is not referred out of the Senate Education Committee before their December break, there might be closed, interested party meetings (instead of open hearings in committee) into January.
How to Provide Testimony
Anyone who is interested in providing testimony for next week’s hearing, whether oral or written or both, may do so by completing and sending an Education Witness Slip and written testimony to kate.rossman@ohiosenate.gov no later than 24 hours prior to the committee hearing. The committee is anticipating a large volume of testimony, so requests will be granted on a first-come, first-served basis. Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes (2–3 pages written).
First Hearing
The first hearing was held on October 18. The sponsor of the bill, Sen. Matt Huffman, introduced the bill to the Education Committee. He noted that burdensome paperwork and tedious tasks distract teachers and superintendents from their primary role of educating students. Sen. Lehner said that although a number of things may be cumbersome, there may be valid reasons to keep them, such as the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA).
Second Hearing
At the second hearing on November 8, several superintendents and other supporters of the bill provided testimony that the proposed changes will remove “unnecessary burdens” that draw attention away from teaching and learning. School leaders and teachers argued that they can more effectively educate students without the overwhelming number of regulations that dictate how schools should be run. Specific provisions supported:
- College Credit Plus – specifically, the cost of textbooks
- Teacher licensure – narrow grade bands make it difficult to fill substitute and regular positions
- Testing changes
Third Hearing
The third hearing, on December 6, was for opponent and interested party testimony. At this hearing, State Superintendent Paolo DeMaria called the bill “a step backward” and “a reactive approach.” He testified as an interested party, noting that he had considered each provision of the bill and whether it would benefit students. He opposed many of the changes in the bill, including the following:
- Eliminating the KRA
- College Credit Plus and requiring ODE to study the effectiveness of CCP
- Changes to substitute teacher licensure
- Eliminating number of excused absences from “excessive absences”
- Eliminating the student growth measure from OTES
- Changes to grade bands for licensure
In all, 13 individuals provided testimony at the third hearing, mainly in opposition to removing the KRA and the licensure grade band changes. Several others were prepared to provide testimony, but because of the length of the meeting, they were asked to come back for the fourth hearing.
Overview of SB 216
For an overview of SB 216, introduced on October 10 by Ohio Sen. Matt Huffman, refer to our previous blog post, Unboxing the Education Deregulation Bill: What’s Inside SB 216.
