Note: To print this issue, you may need to choose the "shrink to fit" option in the print window.
The Ohio Teacher Evaluation System • Policy implications of the ESEA flexibility waiver • Participating in board meetings electronically • Using electronic surveillance in schools • Changes to requirements for teacher continuing contracts • Awarding high school diplomas to veterans of war • Sample policies included with this issue
The Ohio Teacher Evaluation System
by Megan Greulich, policy consultant
One topic that has garnered a lot of attention lately is the new Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES). It was developed under House Bill (HB) 153, the biennial budget, and further adjusted under Senate Bill (SB) 316, the mid-biennium review. OTES has been hotly debated, and that is not likely to change as districts attempt to adopt and implement policies on the topic.
OTES board policies are required to comply with state law and conform with the Ohio Department of Education’s (ODE) evaluation framework. Beyond this, ODE has released a model policy for districts to use to develop customized board policies. As we work through the requirements, you will see that ODE’s model policy goes above and beyond some of the legal requirements. For this reason, OSBA has created sample language that conforms with both state law and ODE’s framework, but does not hold districts to a higher standard than required by law. It is important to understand what is actually required to develop a policy that both meets the legal requirements and suits your district’s needs.
State law
State law provisions dealing with teacher evaluations appear in Revised Code Sections (RC) 3319.111, 3319.112 and 3319.58. RC 3319.111 sets forth general requirements for teacher evaluations; RC 3319.112 sets forth the requirements for ODE’s teacher evaluation framework; and RC 3319.58 deals with ineffective teachers in core subjects.
RC 3319.111
The policy applies to teachers issued licenses under RC 3319 or former RC 3319.22, and who spend at least 50% of their time providing content-related student instruction. The provision specifically states that it does not apply to substitute teachers. Boards of education must adopt a standards-based teacher evaluation policy that conforms with ODE’s teacher evaluation framework by July 1, 2013. The policy prevails over any conflicting provisions of collective bargaining agreements entered into on or after Sept. 24, 2012.
Under OTES, evaluation ratings will be based 50% on student growth measures and 50% on teacher performance. In determining measures of student academic growth, value-added data must be used when available. When value-added data is not available, boards will administer assessments from ODE’s approved assessments list or locally developed assessments of student growth, called student learning objectives.
Teachers must be evaluated at least once per year, but boards may choose to evaluate teachers receiving a rating of “accomplished” on the most recent evaluation once every two years. Boards wishing to evaluate accomplished teachers once every two years must adopt a resolution stating such. Including language in board policy meets the resolution requirement. Evaluations must be completed annually by May 1, and teachers must receive written reports of evaluation results by May 10. If the district evaluates accomplished teachers every two years, the evaluations and reports must meet the May 1 and May 10 deadlines in the year that the teacher is evaluated. Evaluations must be conducted by individuals who hold evaluator credentials established by ODE. ODE’s website contains several useful resources regarding evaluators and their credentials.
A teacher under consideration for nonrenewal and with whom the board has entered into a limited or extended limited contract must be evaluated in at least three formal observations. Additionally, boards may choose to evaluate teachers receiving effectiveness ratings of “accomplished” on the most recent evaluations through one formal observation and the completion of a board-approved project. If the board chooses to evaluate accomplished teachers this way, it must adopt a resolution stating such. Including language in board policy meets this requirement.
The board is required to use teacher evaluation results for promotion and retention decisions and for removing poorly performing teachers. The procedures for doing this must appear in board policy, and it is best to include these procedures in a board-approved regulation. These procedures will be district-specific, so boards should work closely with board counsel to develop this language. Additionally, seniority cannot be the basis for a decision to retain a teacher, except when making a decision between teachers who have comparable evaluations.
The board must annually report to ODE the number of teachers evaluated and the number of teachers assigned each effectiveness rating. This data must be aggregated by the teacher preparation program the teacher graduated from and the year the teacher graduated. ODE will establish reporting guidelines, but shall not permit or require the name or personally identifiable information of any teacher. ODE’s website contains additional information about reporting requirements. Currently, ODE’s website states that the Ohio Electronic Teacher and Principal Evaluation Systems (eTPES) will be the system used for reporting educator ratings to ODE. Check ODE’s website for more information and a frequently-asked-questions document about reporting requirements and the reporting system.
RC 3319.112
ODE was required to adopt a standards-based teacher evaluation framework by Dec. 31, 2011. ODE rolled out the framework last year at the OSBA Capital Conference. SB 316 added a provision allowing the State Board of Education to periodically update the framework, which is required to establish an evaluation system that does all of the following.
The framework must provide for multiple evaluation factors, including 50% student growth and 50% teacher performance. SB 316 added that students with 60 or more unexcused absences for the school year are not included in the student growth measure. The teacher performance portion of the rating must align with the standards for teachers. This is accomplished in the evaluation framework by including the seven educator standards in the determination of teacher performance.
The framework also must include at least two formal observations — at least 30 minutes each — and periodic classroom walk-throughs. The framework must assign an effectiveness rating and require teachers to be provided with a written report of their evaluation results. The framework also must identify measures of student growth for grade levels and subjects where value-added data is not available. The framework also must provide for professional development to accelerate and continue teacher growth and support to poorly performing teachers. Additionally, the framework must provide for allocation of financial resources to support professional development.
The framework also is required to develop standards and criteria that distinguish among the effectiveness ratings of “accomplished,” “proficient,” “developing” and “ineffective.” ODE is required to develop an approved assessments list for grades and subjects where value-added data is not available. Finally, ODE must help districts develop policies by serving as a clearinghouse and providing technical assistance.
RC 3319.58
Between HB 153 and SB 316, there was much discussion regarding how long a teacher could stay in the “ineffective” range. An attempt has been made to answer these questions through SB 316. Beginning with the 2015-2016 school year, districts must require classroom teachers currently teaching in core subject areas and receiving a rating of ineffective for two of the three most recent school years to register for and take all written examinations of content knowledge selected by ODE as appropriate to determine expertise to teach the core subject area and grade level to which the teacher is assigned.
This provision also applies to community and science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) schools. Beginning in 2015-2016, teachers teaching in a core subject area at community and STEM schools with buildings ranked in the lowest 10% of all public school buildings on the performance index score must take written examinations of content knowledge selected by ODE to determine expertise to teach the core subject area and grade level to which the teacher is assigned.
This provision also requires that teachers show proof of having taken and passed such examinations and be required by their employer to, at the teacher’s expense, complete professional development targeted at the deficiencies identified in the teachers’ evaluations. If a teacher receives an ineffective rating on his or her next evaluation after completing the professional development, or fails to complete the professional development, the board will have grounds for termination under RC 3319.16. Additionally, teachers taking and passing the examination will not be required to take the examination again for three years, regardless of their evaluation ratings or the performance index score ranking of their building.
Teachers will not be responsible for the cost of taking the examinations required under this section. Districts may use the results of teacher examinations for developing and revising professional development plans and in deciding whether to continue employing the teacher. No decision to terminate or nonrenew a teacher’s contract may be made solely on the basis of the results of a teacher’s examination, unless the teacher has not attained a passing score on the same required examination for at least three consecutive test administrations.
ODE teacher evaluation framework
The framework reiterates many of the RC 3319.112 requirements, but also includes some additional requirements that are not set forth by law. It is most important for districts to understand that they are required to comply with state law and adopt policy language that conforms with the framework, so districts must comply with the requirements of the framework as well.
The framework includes a chart illustrating how the two 50% measures are combined to determine the overall evaluation rating. The framework currently includes the former April dates for evaluation and written reports to teachers. These dates were changed from April 1 and April 10 to May 1 and May 10 by SB 316. Don’t let this confuse you; the evaluation and written report deadlines are May 1 and May 10 respectively. The framework also includes an evaluation matrix. The matrix illustrates how student growth and teacher performance are combined to reach the final evaluation rating.
Below the evaluation matrix is the teacher autonomy language. This is something that only appears in the framework. And remember, boards must incorporate this information into board policy, because board policy is required to conform with the framework. Under the requirements, teacher autonomy is tied to student growth.
Teachers with above expected levels of student growth have the highest level of autonomy, and will develop professional growth plans and may choose their credentialed evaluators for the evaluation cycle. Teachers with expected levels of student growth have a mid-level of autonomy and will develop professional growth plans collaboratively with the credentialed evaluator and will have input on their credentialed evaluator for the evaluation cycle. Finally, teachers with below-expected levels of student growth have the lowest level of autonomy and will develop an improvement plan with their credentialed evaluator. The administration will assign a credentialed evaluator to teachers with below-expected levels of student growth for the evaluation cycle and approve the improvement plan.
All of the other language in the framework reiterates the state law requirements. The framework also mentions the allocation of financial resources. The framework states that the local board of education will provide for the allocation of financial resources to support professional development. This is important to note, as ODE’s model policy suggests that more is required than the board’s provision for the allocation of financial resources.
ODE’s model policy
ODE’s model OTES policy goes above and beyond the legal requirements and the requirements set forth by ODE’s Teacher Evaluation Framework in many regards. It’s clear that the ODE model policy is meant as a resource for districts in developing their individual board policies. OSBA has created sample language that complies with state law and conforms with ODE’s teacher evaluation framework, but does not go above the legal requirements. If you are planning on using ODE’s model OTES policy to create your district’s board policy, there are some things you need to know.
First, under calculating teacher performance, ODE refers to a “holistic approach.” This language does not appear anywhere else, and because it is not clearly defined, OSBA does not recommend adding it to your board policy language. Additionally, in that same section, the ODE model states that the superintendent or designee shall select or develop the evaluation tools to be used in calculating teacher performance in consultation with teachers. This is not required. The only thing that is required to be done in consultation with teachers is the overall policy development. It’s not necessarily bad to consult with teachers, but when you say you will, you may open the door for an argument that “in consultation” means “bargained.” Since you are not required to do this, we recommend that you not include this language in board policy. The term “in consultation” is a slippery slope, and districts should be cautious in its use.
Second, under the calculating teacher performance section, ODE suggests that districts are required to include, in board policy, an explanation of locally selected evaluation tools. This is not only not required, but the previous language seems to delegate the authority for selecting these tools to the superintendent or his or her designee. This language is contradictory. The board can delegate the responsibility, maintain the responsibility or choose to delegate the responsibility to the superintendent or designee with the caveat that the board will have final approval. Whatever route the board chooses, there is no requirement that the final product appear in board policy. If the board delegates this responsibility to the superintendent or designee, it provides more flexibility to make adjustments later by not requiring the board to take action every time an adjustment must be made.
Third, under the calculating student growth measures section, ODE’s model policy suggests that boards should place in board policy or regulation the percentages the district will attribute to the different assessments and measures; this is not required by the law or the framework. This information should be kept separate from board policy for more flexibility.
In this section, ODE also refers to the calculation for student academic growth, stating that it does not include students who have 60 or more excused or unexcused absences for the school year. This is inaccurate. The law provides that students with 60 or more unexcused absences are not included, but makes no mention of students with 60 or more excused absences. The provision for this language appears in RC 3319.112(A)(1).
Fourth, under the evaluation time line section, ODE’s model policy deals with language for districts choosing to evaluate accomplished teachers biennially and/or via one formal observation and a board-approved project. If your district chooses to do one or both of these things, language should appear in board policy, but the ODE model includes “or” language. It’s important to note that if your district chooses not to do one or both of these things, you don’t need to include the “or” language stating that you don’t do it. The only reason to address either or both of these issues is if you want them to apply in your district. If you are not doing them, the teachers who fall under the requirements will be evaluated the same as everyone else, therefore leaving no need for distinction.
Fifth, the ODE model touches on the professional growth and improvement plans discussed under the teacher autonomy language of the framework. The framework is the only place this information is mentioned, and nothing in the framework requires districts to include the minimum components of the plans in board policy, as ODE’s model policy suggests. This is not required, and districts may want to leave it out for other reasons, as well. Requiring minimum components might take away from the intended purpose of these plans, which is to develop an individual plan to meet each teacher’s needs. If you include minimum components, they may not be applicable to all teachers, and might take away from time that a teacher could be focusing on a component that would be more beneficial to him or her simply because it is required by board policy.
Sixth, under the sections dealing with retention, promotion and the removal of poorly performing teachers, ODE suggests including procedures for doing this in board policy. Procedural language that instructs administrators on how to implement the policy should be kept separate from board policy and coded as a regulation. For this reason, your procedures for dealing with these topics should be coded as a regulation to the OTES policy.
Finally, there is the issue of professional development. First, ODE suggests that this is a local decision that should be made in consultation with district administrators and teachers. This is not required and may not be wise to include. Additionally, ODE suggests that the board’s actual plan for allocating financial resources to support professional development also should appear in board policy. There is no requirement that this plan appear in board policy, and, again, for added flexibility, it should not. To meet the requirement of providing for such resources, OSBA recommends adding language that states, “The board allocates financial resources to support professional development in compliance with state law and the State Board of Education’s evaluation framework.” In doing so, the board is providing for the allocation of financial resources, but giving itself flexibility to determine how to do so.
Conclusion
The OTES policy should be coded AFC-1, Evaluation of Professional Staff (Teachers) (Also GCN-1). The regulation that contains information on how evaluation results should be used for promotion and retention decisions and the removal of poorly performing teachers should be coded ACF-1-R, Evaluation of Professional Staff (Teachers) (Also GCN-1-R). Districts should consult with board counsel to develop these procedures.
OTES will have varying outcomes in different districts, and how districts implement the new system will vary depending on district needs and resources. It is important to know what is and is not required before developing an OTES policy. There is nothing wrong with going above the minimum legal requirements, but districts should make such decisions after carefully considering the potential effects.
Policy implications of the ESEA flexibility waiver
by Kenna Haycox, policy consultant
On May 29, 2012, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) approved Ohio’s request for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) waiver. This waiver is for flexibility from certain — but not all — requirements of ESEA as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. DOE stated in its approval that Ohio continues to have an affirmative responsibility to ensure that districts are in compliance with federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability and age in the implementation of the ESEA waiver.
The Ohio ESEA flexibility waiver has conditional approval and will take effect for the 2012-13 school year. Ohio must submit an amended request with the final administrative rules for the A-F school grading system to DOE by June 30, 2013, to continue to receive ESEA flexibility. However, if Congress reauthorizes ESEA between now and the 2014-15 school year, the reauthorized law would take priority over Ohio’s waiver.
The flexibility waiver affects schools in several ways. The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) released a frequently-asked-questions document on its website outlining the changes stemming from the ESEA waiver. Much of the information here comes from its guidance, as well as the waiver application and the DOE letter granting the waiver. These materials are available at education.ohio.gov by searching “ESEA waiver.”
Public school choice and supplemental educational services
Ohio received a waiver from ESEA Section 1116(b) (except (b)(13)). This waiver means that Title I schools are no longer required to offer public school choice (PSC) or supplemental educational services (SES). Districts are no longer required to send the PSC/SES parent notification letters. Schools should provide parents with information to explain why SES and transportation for PSC will no longer be offered, beginning with this school year. Districts also should explain the interventions, incentives and supports that will replace PSC and SES, and other relevant details concerning the termination of services. A customizable sample notification letter to inform parents about the changes is available at https://ccip.ode.state.oh.us/documentlibrary/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentKey=78312.
The provisions of ESEA Section 1116(b)(13) were not waived, and while districts are no longer obligated by federal law to provide transportation for PSC, students already taking advantage of PSC must be permitted to remain at the school of their choice until they have completed the highest grade level in that school. Parents should be notified of this right as soon as possible.
The waiver from ESEA 1116(e) means that districts are no longer required to offer SES or notification of services. ODE will no longer maintain a list of SES providers; however, districts must maintain all SES records for at least three years. Districts already should have completed the required SES reporting requirements for the 2012 fiscal year.
Policy IGBJ, Title I Programs, has been updated by removing the language concerning PSC and SES. Additionally, IGBJ-R, which outlines the PSC procedures, has been removed. These are available with this issue of PDQ.
Highly qualified teachers
The provisions of ESEA Section 2141(c) for highly qualified teachers were waived. Currently, all core academic subject teachers must meet the highly qualified teacher (HQT) requirements. ODE will begin to phase out the HQT requirements as districts demonstrate that they have an evaluation system and policies that align with the state framework. This phaseout will occur gradually as districts implement the evaluation system, but will be no later than the 2014-15 school year. At this time, effectiveness ratings for teachers and principals, and the number of teachers employed that hold senior and lead teacher licenses will replace the HQT data on the Local Report Card.
One change the ESEA waiver made to HQT requirements is that districts that have not met adequate yearly progress (AYP) and annual measurable objectives for HQT for three consecutive years are no longer required to enter into a partnership agreement with ODE as set forth in ESEA Section 2141(c). Districts are still required to annually update the four required HQT components in the Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Plan (CCIP) district/agency plan. Some districts may need to complete additional optional components as set forth in ODE guidance.
Until the complete phase out of HQT, districts should follow the legal requirements and continue to look for further guidance from ODE concerning the hiring of teachers. There are no policy updates needed at this time to reflect these changes; there will be changes upon the complete phaseout of the HQT requirements.
AYP and the 2013-2014 time line
Provisions of ESEA Sections 1111(b)(2)(E)-(H), 1116(a)(1)(A)-(B) and 1116(c)(1)(A) were waived for Ohio. These sections cover the requirement for high academic standards for all subgroups. Ohio has adopted the Common Core Standards. These were integrated as part of the application to waive the provisions of these sections. Additionally, the requirement for the state to make AYP determinations as determined by ESEA for schools is waived. The waiver institutes the replacement of the federal AYP measure, which had the unrealistic goal of 100% proficiency for reading and mathematics for every student in every demographic group by 2014. The new measures include rigorous, but realistic, objectives that aim to cut the achievement gap in reading and mathematics by half over six years, while requiring higher performance from all students.
Policies IGBA, Programs for Student with Disabilities, and IGBI, Limited English Proficiency, have been updated to reflect the changes to AYP and the 2013-2014 time line, and are available with this issue.
Parental involvement
The ESEA parental involvement requirements were not waived. Title I schools must still comply with the requirements for engaging parents and families in the educational process. This includes the allocation of funds, as well as the notification requirements. Title I schools must still notify parents that they may request information regarding the professional qualifications of their children’s classroom teachers. The district also must continue to provide timely notice to parents of students in Title I-served buildings if their child has been assigned to be taught, or has been taught, for four or more consecutive weeks by a teacher who is not highly qualified.
Additional considerations
There were several additional waivers granted that do not have a direct impact on board policy. A chart outlining the waived ESEA sections is one of the resources available on ODE’s website. The ESEA waiver changes requirements for within-district allocations, schoolwide poverty thresholds, transferability of funds, state allocation of funds and more. It is important for the appropriate administrators to become familiar with the changes for implementing the affected programs in the district. A recorded webinar and additional documents are available for download on ODE’s website. For questions related to these changes, contact the Office of Federal Programs at (614) 799-7494 or email your district federal programs consultant.
Participating in board meetings electronically
by Sara C. Clark, deputy director of legal services
At its organizational meeting in January, each school board is required to set the board’s regular meeting schedule for the year. In an ideal world, board members would mark their calendars with these dates and plan their activities around attending board meetings. In reality, the unexpected happens, and even the most committed members are not able to attend every meeting. Perhaps a board member needs to work late, inclement weather prevents travel or a board member is recuperating from an illness. The board member may still wish to attend the meeting, but attending in person is impossible.
In these cases, some boards will offer members the opportunity to participate in the meeting via electronic means, typically by conference call or videoconference. These tools can offer flexibility to board meetings and allow individual members to participate when they otherwise would not be able to attend a meeting. Although there are benefits, there also are some legal and practical implications that boards should consider before offering electronic participation as an option to board members.
Legal implications
Ohio Revised Code (RC) Section 121.22(C) states: “A member of a public body shall be present in person at a meeting … to be considered present or to vote at the meeting and for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present at the meeting.” This means that even if a board allows its members to call into the board meeting or participate via electronic means, they will not be permitted to vote on anything that requires board action and will not be counted for quorum purposes.
Note: As an aside, there is a 1985 opinion of the Ohio attorney general’s office (OAG) that seems to suggest that allowing a board member to participate, deliberate and vote via electronic means is not a violation of the Open Meetings Act (1985 OAG 048). Although this opinion has not been overruled by OAG, it relies on an earlier version of RC 121.22(C) that does not include the requirement that board members be physically present in order to vote or be counted for quorum purposes. RC 121.22(C) has been amended since the opinion was released to include the language referenced above. As a result, it seems that this opinion has been legislatively overruled and should not be relied upon.
OAG also discussed this topic in 2009 in an opinion that dealt with the board’s ability to meet by teleconference (2009 OAG 034). In that opinion, OAG held that because all meetings of a public body are required to be “open to the public at all times,” a public body is prohibited from “conducting a meeting by teleconference or other means that prevent the public, or a majority of the members of the public body, from attending the meeting in person.” OAG also held that members of a public body were prohibited from attempting to circumvent the intent of the open meetings law by conducting a conference call and claiming it does not meet the definition of a “meeting” of the board because a majority of the members are not “present in person.”
So what does this all mean? Taken together, the opinions and the law prohibit a board from conducting a board meeting where all members participate via electronic means since that would prevent the public from attending the meeting. However, a board could allow an individual board member to participate via conference call or videoconference as long as there is a quorum present at the meeting. Such participation would be limited to listening to and participating in the board’s discussions. A board member who participates via electronic means may not be counted for quorum purposes, nor may the board member vote.
Practical implications
Although there are benefits to allowing a board member to participate via electronic means, there are some potential challenges for boards, as well. For example, it may be difficult for board members to have a complex discussion and debate without being in the same room. Additionally, allowing a board member to participate electronically requires a great deal of trust among board members, particularly during executive sessions. It’s difficult — if not impossible — to verify when outsiders are in the absent board member’s presence, so board members must assume that only those who announce themselves are listening in on the board’s discussions.
Allowing a board member to participate via electronic means doesn’t negate the board’s responsibility to keep accurate minutes of the meeting. Although the Ohio Revised Code doesn’t provide details about what should be contained in the board’s minutes, case law has held that minutes must be of sufficient specificity that an individual not present at the meeting could read them and understand and appreciate both the board’s official actions and the rationale behind them (White v. Clinton County Board of Commissioners (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 416). To meet this requirement, the board should note on the record that the absent board member is participating via electronic means. Boards that rely on audio or video recordings as the board’s official minutes also will want to ensure that these recordings capture the comments made by the member participating electronically.
Policy implications
A board that allows its members to participate via electronic means should include language in its board policy to reflect this choice. OSBA policy BD, School Board Meetings, has been updated to include permissive language that authorizes a board member’s participation in this manner and clarifies that board members who participate electronically may not vote at the meeting and will not be counted for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present.
Using electronic surveillance in schools
by Renee L. Fambro, deputy director of labor relations
Safety in schools is a constant concern, and many districts are using surveillance cameras on school property and in school vehicles to help keep students and staff safe and secure. There are several things schools should consider when installing and using electronic surveillance. Camera placement and types of footage, and notice and the security of footage are key areas that require careful attention.
Placement and type
First, courts have held that cameras should be restricted to common areas — such as hallways, parking lots and cafeterias — where the expectation of privacy is low. Schools should avoid semiprivate areas, such as restrooms and locker rooms. If your school is in the process of installing a surveillance system, take advantage of local law enforcement expertise to help you select the best placement of cameras in these common areas.
Secondly, districts should carefully consider whether to use cameras that record both video and audio. Surveillance cameras that record audio may violate both federal and state wiretapping laws. The conservative approach for districts is to use only video surveillance systems. However, if your district wants to use audio as well, you should consult with your board counsel to ensure that your surveillance system is in line with federal and state law to avoid criminal and civil liability.
Notice
Schools using electronic surveillance should provide notice of the presence of surveillance cameras to staff, students, parents and the community. Staff and student handbooks can be used to provide notification, as well as posted signs in areas where cameras are being used. If your district is already using cameras, this is a good time to review the notices you’ve provided, especially those in the immediate vicinities of the cameras.
Footage security
School districts need to manage their surveillance cameras and footage in a way that protects against loss, unauthorized access and inappropriate disclosure or other misuse. Securing the footage is important, and staff should be trained on the appropriate policies and procedures that relate to the storage, retention and proper disposal of footage.
Be prepared for requests for footage, as well. The requests can come from parents, citizens and the media. The release of footage that captures images of students implicates the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and should be handled carefully. Guidance can be found at ed.gov/FERPA and districts should consult with board counsel when requests for footage are received.
Collective bargaining implications
If a district plans to use footage from a surveillance camera to support a disciplinary action against an employee, there are potential collective bargaining implications. The union can make the argument that such footage now affects the “terms and conditions” of employment and is, therefore, a required subject of bargaining under Ohio Revised Code Section 4117. This is another area in which you should consult with board counsel.
Policy updates
Included with this edition of PDQ is the updated policy ECA, Building and Grounds Security, and ECA-R, the corresponding regulation. The updated versions reflect the key areas of concern, including placement of camera and type of recording and notice requirements. Also, the updated language on metal detectors now provides more flexibility to districts in deciding if they want to add metal detectors as an additional security measure.
The policy and regulation are not required, but districts that have these policies should make the recommended changes. Districts that haven’t adopted them may want to consider adding them, but are not required to do so. Adding these to your policy manual and following the procedures is one way to help protect your district from potential liability surrounding the use of electronic surveillance.
Changes to requirements for teacher continuing contracts
by Kenna Haycox, policy consultant
Ohio Revised Code 3319.08 was amended by House Bill (HB) 153 in 2011. The changes affect the requirements for issuing continuing contracts. There are now three different sets of criteria for teachers to be issued continuing contracts. The first category of teachers who can be issued continuing contracts are teachers who hold a professional, permanent or life teaching certificate. Teachers who do not hold one of these certificates now fall into one of two sets of criteria, based on whether they were issued their original licenses before or after Jan. 1, 2011. The criteria for teachers issued licenses before or after Jan. 1, 2011, are the same, except that teachers who were issued their initial educator license on or after Jan. 1, 2011, must now have held an educator license for at least seven years to be considered for continuing contract status.
The specific language concerning types of contracts is not required to be in board policy. However, if your policy includes the specific requirements for continuing contracts, you should update the language to reflect the legal changes. Policy GCB-1, Professional Staff Contracts and Compensation Plans (Teachers), has been updated to reflect these changes.
Awarding high school diplomas to veterans of war
by Megan Greulich, policy consultant
In the interests of ensuring that OSBA policies match the requirements set forth by the law, we often review policy language for potential changes. We recently updated policy IGEE, Awarding of High School Diplomas to Veterans of War, to more closely reflect what the law allows. This policy is not required, but districts choosing to apply the law on this topic may want to adopt policy language to reflect the practice within the district.
The language has been adjusted so that it more closely reflects the Ohio Revised Code language. Districts that already have this policy in place should make the recommended changes. Districts that don’t have this policy may want to consider adding it, but are not required to do so.
Sample policies included with this issue
Note: Policies and/or regulations marked with an * are required. Check to confirm that you have a policy and/or regulation.
Revised polices/regulations (add new language shown in bold type and delete language in strike-through type)
*AFC-1, Evaluation of Professional Staff (also GCN-1)
ECA, Building Grounds and Security
ECA-R, Building Grounds and Security
GCB-1, Professional Staff Contracts and Compensation Plans
*GCN-1 (also AFC-1), Evaluation of Professional Staff
*IGBA, Programs for Students with Disabilities
*IGBI, Limited English Proficiency