View HTML

PDQ February 2020

In this issue: OSBA releases policy addressing identification of students at risk of not graduating and graduation plans requirements • Ohio Teacher Evaluation System • Understanding diploma seals • Update on Licensure Code of Professional Conduct for Ohio Educators • Updated ODE attendance guidance • Hazing and bullying policy requirements • Executive session refresher • USDOE guidance on constitutionally protected prayer and religious expression • Sample policies included with this issue

OSBA releases policy addressing identification of students at risk of not graduating and graduation plans requirements

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

Districts are required to adopt a policy to assist students who are at risk of not graduating. Beginning next school year, districts also must develop graduation plans for all students. OSBA is releasing a policy to help you implement this in your district.

Graduation plans for students
Beginning with the 2020-21 school year, districts must develop and maintain a graduation plan for every student enrolled in grades nine through 12. The plan must address the student’s academic pathway to meet the curriculum requirements specified by the district and to satisfy the applicable graduation requirements, according to Ohio Revised Code (RC) 3313.617.

The plan must be developed jointly by the student and a district representative and updated each school year in which the student is enrolled in the district until the student qualifies for a high school diploma. The district also must invite the student’s parent, guardian or custodian to assist in developing and updating the graduation plan.

These graduation plans are to supplement the board-adopted career-advising policy districts already have in place (RC 3313.6020), which is addressed in more detail later in this article.

A student’s individualized education program (IEP) may be used in lieu of a graduation plan when the IEP contains academic goals substantively similar to a graduation plan.

One purpose of these plans is to help identify students at risk of not graduating. As a result, the district must include a student’s lack of progress in meeting the terms of a graduation plan as a criterion for identifying at-risk students.

At-risk students
No later than June 30, 2020, the board must adopt a policy regarding students who are at risk of not qualifying for a high school diploma. The policy must require the district to do all of the following:

Develop criteria for identifying at-risk students including:
- lack of adequate progress on a graduation plan;
- other factors like excessive absences or misconduct.
Develop procedures for identifying at-risk students, including a method for determining if a student is not making adequate progress on a graduation plan. These procedures must allow for a student to be identified as at risk in each of grades nine through 12 and may include the identification of students in other grades.
Develop a notification process that:
- notifies the parent, guardian or custodian each year the student has been identified as at risk;
- requires written notice, including:
  - a statement that the student may not qualify to graduate;
  - a description of graduation requirements or the student’s IEP;
  - a description of any additional instructional or support services available to the student through the district.
Assist at-risk students with additional instructional and support services to help them qualify for a high school diploma, which may include:
- mentoring;
- tutoring;
- high school credit through demonstrations of subject area competency under RC 3313.603(J), such as credit flexibility;
- adjusted curriculum options;
- career-technical programs;
- mental health services;
- physical health care services;
- family engagement and support services.

This policy also must include the information on graduation plans addressed earlier in this article.

As we look at these new requirements, remember what your career-advising policy, adopted under RC 3313.6020, already requires for students identified as at risk of dropping out. Under this section, you have been required since the 2015-16 school year to identify students who are at risk of dropping out of school using a method that is both research- and locally based and developed with input from the district’s classroom teachers and guidance counselors.

If a student is identified as at risk, the district already has been obligated to develop a student success plan addressing his or her academic pathway to a successful graduation and the role of career-technical education, competency-based education and experiential learning, as appropriate in that pathway. Prior to developing this plan, you must invite the student’s parents, guardians or custodians to help develop the student success plan. A copy of the student success plan, a statement regarding the importance of a high school diploma and the academic pathways available to the student for successful graduation must be provided to parents, guardians or custodians who do not participate in development of the student’s plan.

Following the student success plan's development, the district must provide career advising aligned with the student’s individual plan and the district’s plan for career advising.

What does this mean for your district?
So, how does this all tie together? As addressed earlier, the new graduation plans are to supplement the board-adopted career-advising policy districts already have in place, which includes developing student success plans and identifying students at risk of dropping out. Recognizing this, districts should consider the already established procedures when determining what procedures to put in place for identifying students at risk of not earning a high school diploma under the new policy requirement.

Evaluate these procedures and determine what adjustments may need to be made based on the inclusion of the requirement for a student not being on track to graduate based on his or her individual plan as a criterion. Districts also should consider what already may be in place for student success plans to determine whether these can be used as part of the graduation plans required for all students.

As a reminder, the Ohio Department of Education has resources related to career advising and student success plans.

Practical and policy implications
Included with this PDQ issue is a new policy IKFC, Graduation Plans and Students at Risk of Not Qualifying for a High School Diploma. Districts should review this policy for adoption no later than June 30, 2020. While this policy provides the components of the statutory requirements in RC 3313.617, it also reflects the relation between this policy and policy IJA, Career Advising, that also has been updated with this PDQ issue.

Some districts may want to further customize this policy to include locally developed procedures or other criteria already in place that will be applied to these new requirements. If this additional customization meets a need for your district and you need assistance in further revising this sample policy, please contact OSBA Senior Policy Consultant Kenna S. Haycox or Policy Consultant Kyle E. Lathwell at (614) 540-4000. Their email addresses are khaycox@ohioschoolboards.org and klathwell@ohioschoolboards.org.

Districts should begin conversations with applicable stakeholders, including guidance counselors, principals and other key individuals, about what graduation plans will look like and the process to begin these plans for all students in grades nine through 12. Also, remember your continued obligations for student success plans, and look for ways to cohesively implement both requirements.

Return to top

Ohio Teacher Evaluation System

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

Senate Bill 216 (2018) began the process for an overhaul of the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) as we have come to know it. The legislation provided that the new OTES process must be implemented beginning with the 2020-21 school year. The State Board of Education is required to adopt a new framework in line with the revised legislation no later than May 1, 2020. All districts must then adopt an updated policy compliant with the new system by July 1, 2020.

Until the State Board adopts the new framework and the new system is finalized, no policy updates can be provided. We are closely monitoring the progress and will review the new information as soon as it is adopted and make our policy recommendations.

Depending on when the State Board acts, districts may have a very short window in which to adopt a compliant policy. As you prepare for the release of the updated framework, make sure you have a good understanding of what your local collective bargaining agreement requires regarding changes to your OTES policy. If you have a preestablished committee, consider how you will engage committee members prior to presenting a policy to the board.

Additionally, in response to questions on when the new OTES system must be implemented, the Ohio Department of Education addresses this in a FAQ document and states the following:

When does a district’s collective bargaining agreement have to reflect a policy to adhere to the revised OTES?
Upon the expiration of any collective bargaining agreement that was in effect on Nov. 2, 2018, any renewal or extension of the collective bargaining agreement must include the new standards-based teacher evaluation policy that will be updated by the district board not later than July 1, 2020, and recognize that the policy will become operative at that time. During the 2018-19 and 2019-20 school years, districts (other than pilot participants) shall evaluate their teachers in accordance with the teacher evaluation framework that existed prior to Nov. 2, 2018.

Additional FAQs are addressed in the above linked FAQ document.

Once we have the needed information, we will release our updated policy guidance as soon as possible. That may be through a future PDQ issue or a separate communication.

Return to top

Understanding diploma seals

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

A key component of the new graduation requirements for students entering ninth grade on or after July 1, 2019, is seals for students to earn to demonstrate they are ready for what comes after high school. This requirement was addressed in more detail in the August 2019 PDQ. Twelve seals are defined in Ohio Revised Code (RC) 3313.6114, allowing students to show their readiness for future careers, college and the military.

Nine seals are state-defined and listed below:

OhioMeansJobs Readiness Seal
State Seal of Biliteracy
Industry-Recognized Credential Seal
College-Ready Seal
Military Enlistment Seal
Citizenship Seal
Science Seal
Honors Diploma Seal
Technology Seal

More information is available in this Ohio Department of Education document.

As we move forward with implementing new graduation requirements, districts also should begin defining the local seals. Each board is required to develop guidelines for at least one of the locally defined seals listed below:

Community Service Seal: A student shall meet the requirement for this seal by completing a community service project that is aligned with guidelines adopted by the student’s district board or school governing authority.
Fine and Performing Arts Seal: A student shall meet the requirement for this seal by demonstrating skill in the fine or performing arts according to an evaluation that is aligned with guidelines adopted by the student’s district board or school governing authority.
Student Engagement Seal: A student shall meet the requirement for this seal by participating in extracurricular activities, such as athletics, clubs or student government, to a meaningful extent as determined by guidelines adopted by the student's district board or school governing authority.

The locally defined seals require boards to adopt guidelines for what it takes to achieve the seal using the criteria outlined above. If your board has not yet approved at least one seal, it is recommended that you begin considering these options. For boards that have approved these seals, we have received several questions about the best way to communicate these as the board-approved seal criterion.

Our recommendation is that once a board approves the seals, they can be integrated into your policy as a regulation, IKF-R, Graduation Requirements (Locally Defined Seals), to accompany your graduation requirements policy. Policy IKF, Graduation Requirements, has been included with this issue for informational purposes.

As these seals are locally defined, OSBA does not have a sample regulation for this. However, once your approved language is submitted for updates, we can integrate this as a regulation into your local manual. If you have questions during the development process, please contact one of your OSBA policy consultants, including the author (khaycox@ohioschoolboards.org) or Kyle E. Lathwell (klathwell@ohioschoolboards.org) or call (614) 540-4000.

Return to top

Update on Licensure Code of Professional Conduct for Ohio Educators

by Kyle E. Lathwell, policy consultant

When parents send their children off to school, they are counting on educators and school staff to provide a safe environment and top-notch educational opportunities for students. The professional conduct of educators impacts the experience students have on a daily basis. It reflects on the buildings they work in and the district overall. The prevalence of social media only further extends the reach of the educator — which can be both good and bad.

Background and basic principles
The State Board of Education, employers and community members expect educators to maintain the highest level of professionalism and hold their peers accountable. The Licensure Code of Professional Conduct for Ohio Educators was originally adopted by the State Board in 2008 due to a legislative requirement. The licensure code serves as a basis for decisions on issues relating to licensure and provides a guide for conduct having professional implications. It covers teachers, principals, superintendents, educational aides, coaches, substitute teachers and other individuals credentialed by the State Board. It is used in conjunction with applicable statutes and administrative rules.

Throughout 2019, the licensure code was reviewed and amended. As a part of that review, public comment was encouraged and received. In July 2019, a board committee passed a resolution recommending the State Board adopt certain changes and additions to the licensure code. On Sept. 17, 2019, the State Board adopted an updated version of the licensure code.

The licensure code is based on the following nine principles (the final principle was added in 2019):

Educators behave in a professional manner, realizing that one’s actions reflect directly on the status and substance of the profession.
Educators maintain a professional relationship with all students at all times, both in and out of the classroom.
Educators accurately report information required by the local board of education or governing board, state education agency, federal agency, or state or federal law.
Educators adhere to federal, state and local laws and statutes regarding criminal activity.
Educators comply with state and federal laws related to maintaining confidential information.
Educators serve as positive role models and do not use, possess or unlawfully distribute illegal or unauthorized drugs.
Educators ensure school property, public funds or fees paid by students or the community are used in the best interest of students and not for personal gain.
Educators fulfill all the terms and obligations in their employment contracts.
Educators use technology in a responsible manner and safeguard the electronic devices and data entrusted to them (new principle).

The Ohio Department of Education is responsible for pursuing allegations of unprofessional conduct, or “conduct unbecoming.” New language acknowledges that an accusation of misconduct is not conclusive proof of conduct unbecoming and not all referrals or investigations result in disciplinary action. Further, educators are entitled to all due process rights, and each situation is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. A range of possible disciplinary actions also are included in the licensure code.

What has changed?
To inform districts of the many changes within the licensure code, this article will highlight some major changes and additions. Note that there is a new principle related to technology.

Professional behavior
In addition to preexisting standards, conduct unbecoming now generally includes: assisting another in committing an act that is conduct unbecoming; having a physical or mental issue that significantly impacts the educator’s ability to do his or her job; harassing behavior toward a colleague; sexual harassment; issues related to the verification of credentials; engaging in duties outside the scope of the educator’s credential type; academic dishonesty; and nepotism.

Professional relationships with students
In addition to preexisting standards, conduct unbecoming now generally includes: soliciting, encouraging, engaging or consummating an inappropriate relationship with any student, minor or individual who was a student in the preceding 12 months and grooming a student for the purpose of an inappropriate emotional, romantic or sexual relationship. Educators are expected to maintain appropriate professional, emotional and social boundaries.

Accurate reporting
In addition to preexisting standards, conduct unbecoming now generally includes: falsifying, intentionally misrepresenting, willfully omitting or being negligent in reporting professional qualifications, criminal history, discipline of a professional license or credential; knowingly failing to notify the superintendent or designee upon becoming aware that an educator’s ability to function in his or her position has been substantially impaired; and directing, instructing, assisting or requesting another to commit an act described in this principle of the licensure code.

Criminal acts
There were no substantial changes or additions to this principle.

Confidentiality
In addition to preexisting standards, conduct unbecoming now generally includes: noncompliance with local, state and federal laws related to maintaining confidential information and violating local, state and federal procedures or laws related to the confidentiality for standardized tests, test supplies or resources.

Use, possession or unlawful distribution of alcohol, drugs and tobacco
In addition to preexisting standards, conduct unbecoming now generally includes: engaging in habitual or excessive abuse of alcohol as
demonstrated by two or more alcohol-related convictions within a five-year span or a severe alcohol-related conviction.

Financial management and improper compensation for personal gain
Educators shall ensure all school funds and accounts are managed in a responsible and transparent manner. In addition to preexisting standards, conduct unbecoming now generally includes: using public school property or public funds for personal use not in accordance with local, state or federal laws; failing to transparently and responsibly account for and manage any and all school-related funds in accordance with local board policies and local, state or federal laws; and failing to pay a finding of recovery issued by the Ohio Auditor of State's Office.

Commitment to contract
There were no substantial changes or additions to this principle.

Appropriate and responsible use of technology
This new principle states that educators shall always use technology, electronic communications and social media in a responsible and professional manner and appropriately safeguard the unauthorized use or access to electronic devices and data entrusted to them.

It also states that an educator responsibly creates, uses, consumes, distributes and protects information and data across all technologies. Educators shall maintain appropriate boundaries with colleagues, students and the school community when using technology and electronic communications. While maintaining their constitutional rights, educators recognize that when using technology, the words they choose and the content of their statements can reflect negatively on their positions, schools and the profession.

Nine different items are listed describing conduct unbecoming an educator as it relates to technology. Become familiar with this new principle and the expectations it places on educators.

Policy implications
Policy GBH (Also JM), Staff-Student Relations, and policy GBCB, Staff Conduct, were reviewed in light of the changes to the licensure code and are included with this PDQ issue. Both policies have been updated to strengthen content and align with the current licensure code.

Return to top

Updated ODE attendance guidance

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) recently released an updated attendance laws FAQ. Districts should review the entire document for answers to various attendance-related questions. Our main focus here is on the classification of absences as excused or unexcused. As addressed in previous PDQ issues, there have been several changes to Ohio’s attendance laws. One of the most recent changes relates to when a student is considered excessively absent.

House Bill (HB) 166, the state biennial budget legislation, effective Oct. 17, 2019, provided a modification to the definition of “excessively absent.” Ohio Revised Code (RC) 3321.191(C)(1) specifies that only a student’s nonmedical excused and unexcused absences may be considered in determining if a student is excessively absent. Therefore, a student of compulsory school age is now deemed excessively absent when he or she is absent with a nonmedical excuse or without legitimate excuse from the public school the child is supposed to attend for 38 or more hours in one school month or 65 or more hours in a school year.

When a child meets the criteria for being deemed “excessively absent,” the school the child attends is required to notify the child’s parent, guardian or custodian of the child’s absences. This notification must be provided in writing within seven days after the date of the absence that triggered the notification requirement.

Any hours that a student is absent with a medical excuse should not be counted by the district in making this determination. This change may reduce the number of students deemed excessively absent, which would, in turn, reduce the number of notices that the district would be required to send.

Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3301-69-02 sets forth a number of acceptable reasons for excusing a child from attendance at school. The rule includes things such as the illness of the child, the death of a relative, a medical or dental appointment, a college visitation or observance of religious holidays. In addition to these formally recognized reasons, RC 3321.04(C) also allows school districts to adopt local policies identifying additional “good and sufficient reasons” justifying a child’s absence from school. The list of reasons for which students may typically be excused appears in policy JED, Student Absences and Excuses.

The recent ODE FAQ document states that the board, through policy, should define what is deemed a medical excuse and the process and timeline for submitting medical excuses.

Policy implications
Based on these recent recommendations, OSBA’s sample policy JED, Student Absences and Excuses, has been updated to provide boards options for defining medically excused absences. Districts should review the policy and identify which excuses on the district’s list are “nonmedical excuses” and which are “medical excuses.” Districts also should determine the local process for documenting such excuses and the process and timeline for submitting required documents. The district should update any internal procedures for sending the absent notices to parents, guardians and custodians to ensure that medical absences aren’t being considered in determining whether the child meets the criteria for being deemed excessively absent. Policy JEE, Student Attendance Accounting (Missing and Absent Children) also has been updated and is available for download.

Districts are reminded throughout the ODE document to ensure they have adequately defined excused absences to meet their local need. Many of these additional reasons often fall under the “emergency or other set of circumstances in which the judgment of the superintendent of schools constitutes a good and sufficient cause for absence from school” reason outlined in OAC 3301-69-02. Districts should review the updated policy JED, Student Absences and Excuses, to determine if additional specific reasons may be outlined here or defined at the district level within student handbooks.

Return to top

Hazing and bullying policy requirements

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

Ohio Revised Code (RC) 3313.666 requires all boards to adopt policies on hazing and bullying. The policy must include the following definition of harassment, intimidation or bullying:

Any intentional written, verbal, electronic or physical act that a student has exhibited toward another particular student more than once and the behavior both: causes mental or physical harm to the other student and is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that it creates an intimidating, threatening or abusive educational environment for the other students or violence within a dating relationship.

The board-adopted policy also must include:

a statement prohibiting harassment, intimidation or bullying of any student on school property, on a school bus or at school-sponsored events and expressly providing for the possibility of suspension of a student found responsible for harassment, intimidation or bullying by an electronic act;
a procedure for reporting prohibited incidents;
a requirement that school personnel report prohibited incidents of which they are aware to the school principal or other administrator designated by the principal;
a requirement that the custodial parent or guardian of any student involved in a prohibited incident be notified and, to the extent permitted by law, have access to any written reports pertaining to the prohibited incident;
a procedure for documenting any prohibited incident that is reported;
a procedure for responding to and investigating any reported incident;
a strategy for protecting a victim or other person from new or additional harassment, intimidation or bullying and from retaliation following a report, including a means by which a person may report an incident anonymously;
a disciplinary procedure for any student guilty of harassment, intimidation or bullying, which shall not infringe on any student's rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
a statement prohibiting students from deliberately making false reports of harassment, intimidation or bullying and a disciplinary procedure for any student responsible for deliberately making a false report of that nature;
a requirement that the district administration semiannually provide the board president with a written summary of all reported incidents and post the summary on the district's website, if the district has a website, to the extent permitted by law.

Additionally, the policy must appear in any student handbooks and any of the publications that set forth the comprehensive rules, procedures and standards of conduct for schools and students in the district. The policy and an explanation of the seriousness of bullying by electronic means must be made available to students in the district and their custodial parents or guardians. Information on the policy must be incorporated into employee training materials.

Policy implications
Districts are audited on compliance with the requirements outlined above. After further review of our policy, we have determined that while other policies within your manual refer to student rights, such as the First Amendment, that language also should appear specifically in this policy. Language has been added to JFCF, Hazing and Bullying (Harassment, Intimidation and Dating Violence), and JFCF-R, Hazing and Bullying (Harassment, Intimidation and Dating Violence), specifically addressing student’s First Amendment rights in the context of this policy.

As you review the updated policy, also confirm you have included this policy and procedure in your student handbooks and have met all other notice requirements. Additionally, remember that your policy JFCF, Hazing and Bullying (Harassment, Intimidation and Dating Violence), and the accompanying regulation JFCF-R, Hazing and Bullying (Harassment, Intimidation and Dating Violence), must be provided to include all required components when audited on this policy or when providing notice of the policy.

Return to top

Executive session refresher

by Kyle E. Lathwell, policy consultant

The Open Meetings Law provides eight reasons — seven which are applicable to boards of education — for boards to remove themselves from public view to discuss permissible topics (see Ohio Revised Code 121.22(G)(1)-(8)). This area of law and its application often are questioned and have led to litigation for boards of education.

An executive session may be held only as a part of a regular or special meeting, and the only permissible discussion during an executive session should regard the one or more specified topics for the executive session. No official action can be taken during an executive session.

One of the most common errors boards make with executive sessions is adopting resolutions to go into executive session for “a permissible purpose” or something equally broad such as “personnel.” The statute requires the motion to be specific in identifying the purpose of the executive session. In the case of a personnel issue, the board needs to be specific about the type of personnel issue it wants to discuss. Review the statutory language and use the words in the statute that most closely reflect the topic to be discussed.

Existing and recent case law make it clear that the board must specifically state one or more permitted purposes to enter executive session (State ex rel. Ames v. Portage County Board of Commissioners, No. 2019-P-0016, 2019-Ohio-3730 (Sept. 16, 2019)). Listing all of the permissible topics or generalizing will not be sufficient. Recent case law also makes clear that the meeting minutes must clearly reflect the specific permitted purpose or purposes for entering executive session (State ex. rel Ames v. Brimfield Township Board of Trustees, 2019-Ohio-4926 (11th Dist., Dec. 2, 2019)).

Policy implications
Policy BDC, Executive Sessions, and policy BDDG, Minutes, were both reviewed and updated to strengthen the policies and better reflect current case law.

Return to top

USDOE guidance on constitutionally protected prayer and religious expression

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) recently released an updated guidance document on constitutionally protected prayer and religious expression in public schools. This document should be reviewed to ensure your district has a solid understanding of the guidance. One of the areas highlighted is an already-existing requirement for school districts to certify in writing to the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) that no policy of the district prevents or otherwise denies participation in constitutionally protected prayer. This certification must be provided by Oct. 1 each year the district participates in an Elementary and Secondary Education Act program.

We have received several questions related to this certification requirement and process. This is not a new requirement, and this certification continues to be made to ODE by submitting your consolidated applications and signing off on the assurances for receipt of federal funds. By signing/submitting the application, the district indicates that it does not have any policies or procedures that deny individuals the right to take part in protected prayer. Policy IND/INDA, School Ceremonies and Observances/Patriotic Exercises, contains language confirming this certification obligation and is included for informational purposes with this PDQ issue.

Return to top