PDQ August 2012
Note: To print this issue, you may need to choose the "shrink to fit" option in the print window.
In this issue:
Bring-your-own-technology policy • Third-grade reading guarantee • New provisions for early entrance to kindergarten or first grade • Academic standards and model curriculum changes • Update on mid-biennial budget review changes • Is your purchasing procedures policy up-to-date? • School properties disposal changes • An update on the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System
Bring your own technology policy
by Kenna Haycox, policy consultant
With the increased trend in bring-your-own-technology (BYOT) or bring-your-own-device programs in schools, many districts are considering adopting BYOT policy language. OSBA is releasing sample language that districts can use as a starting point in developing programs. Determining whether to implement a BYOT program is a local district decision. These programs give teachers an opportunity to educate, engage and prepare students for the 21st century workforce. Additionally, the transition to Common Core standards and new computer-based assessments is causing districts to reconsider their technology infrastructures and capabilities. As a result, many districts are considering BYOT programs to address their technology needs.
BYOT programs help schools integrate a higher level of technology into the classroom at minimal cost to the district. It is important to understand how a BYOT program may affect board and district policies and procedures.
Important considerations
Before implementing a BYOT program, it is important for districts to collaborate with appropriate stakeholders and address the following issues:
• Digital equity: Are students without access to personal technology limited in the classroom? Are students with disabilities limited by an inability to use available technology? What resources will the district provide to students who don’t have access to a personal device?
• Infrastructure: Do buildings have adequate wireless networks to handle added devices? Is filtering software in place for wireless networks?
• Purpose of the program: Has the district set clear guidelines for using personal technology in the classroom?
These questions should be answered, and any issues resolved, prior to implementation of a BYOT program. Additionally, a regular review of these considerations should be carried out during program implementation.
E-Rate requirements
Questions arise when considering the district’s responsibility in monitoring students' online behavior when using personal devices on school property. These concerns come from requirements in the E-Rate program and the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA).
In August 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released report and order 11-125. In it, FCC addressed requests for guidance on applying CIPA to student use of student-owned portable devices, such as laptops and cell phones, via school district Internet access. The commission stated that it “recognizes that this is an increasingly important issue, as portable access devices proliferate in schools and libraries. We believe it may be helpful to clarify the appropriate policies in this area, and intend to seek public comment in a separate proceeding.” The commission does not specifically address requirements for student personal device use on district property, leaving the final determination on how to handle the topic to local districts.
OSBA’s sample policy errs on the conservative side due to the current lack of standards. The sample language provides that students using personal technology on school property must comply with the district’s Acceptable Use and Internet Safety policy. To promote safe, filtered Internet access, the sample language requires students to connect to the district-provided wireless network.
Policy implications
Sample language on this topic appears in new policy EDEB, Bring Your Own Technology (BYOT) Program. The policy and accompanying regulation are customizable, and serve as a template for districts to develop individual BYOT programs.
Policy EDEB addresses three important issues: permitting a BYOT program; defining acceptable technology and to whom the program is applicable; and establishing usage responsibilities. The sample language also allows districts to determine to whom the program applies: middle school only, high school only or middle school and high school. A statement of applicable grade levels clearly communicates district expectations to parents, students, teachers and administrators. Districts may choose to pilot a BYOT program at one grade or building level. When doing so, districts should update policy language to reflect applicable participants. The language should be updated as implementation of the program changes to accurately reflect the allowable participants in the BYOT program.
School board BYOT policies also should define which electronic devices are approved for use under the program. The sample language excludes smart phones and cellular telephones, but includes e-readers, laptops, tablet computers and iPads. This is a recommendation, but individual districts should determine approved devices and clearly reflect the standard in board policy.
The sample language also discusses Internet access and requires students to use only the district-provided wireless Internet to ensure proper filtering and monitoring. The language also requires adherence to district policies and guidelines set forth by the district’s Acceptable Use Policy, Personal Technology Policy and Student Code of Conduct. The policy discusses discipline for violations of board-approved policies, procedures and the student code of conduct and searches of student electronic devices.
Districts should have a plan for addressing equal access to personal technology. To promote an equal educational environment for all students, the sample language states that students not possessing personal technology will be provided access to appropriate district-owned digital devices when personal devices are used to enhance learning in the classroom.
In addition to district policy, guidelines for mobile technology use in the classroom should be created in consultation with appropriate stakeholders. Clear expectations and guidelines on using personal mobile technology in the classroom are essential for properly implementing a BYOT program. Sample regulation, EDEB-R, Bring Your Own Technology Program, is included as a template for districts to use in creating district-specific guidelines. The sample regulation provides general guidance for BYOT programs and use of personal devices. It addresses when and how devices can be used, reiterates that students must comply with district policies and procedures, and stresses the importance of student responsibility. Districts can customize these sample guidelines and/or provide more specific guidelines in student handbooks.
Summary
BYOT programs can provide a variety of educational benefits to staff, students and the district. There are, however, several potential implementation challenges. If your district is considering implementing a BYOT program, you may want to begin with a pilot program to evaluate what works well and what needs improvement. If your district implements this type of program, OSBA strongly recommends adopting policy and regulation language to address its framework, but keep in mind policy language on this topic currently is not required. Setting a clear standard for the program will ensure staff and student compliance.
At this point, districts have a great deal of flexibility in creating and implementing BYOT programs. It is important to stay aware of E-Rate requirement changes or future FCC reports, which may create BYOT program and policy requirements. Districts should follow the ongoing discussion on this topic to ensure that local BYOT programs are implemented effectively, efficiently and equitably. Maintaining clear policies and procedures is essential for effective BYOT policy implementation.
by Renee L. Fambro, deputy director of labor relations
Senate Bill (SB) 316 contains provisions that significantly affect the third-grade reading guarantee in areas of student retention, diagnostic assessments, intervention requirements and reporting requirements. First, let’s review the changes made to the Ohio Revised Code (RC).
Retention
Several changes were made regarding which students can be retained. First, changes were made that impact the State Board of Education's duties related to the third-grade reading guarantee. SB 316 requires the State Board to determine and designate a “cut” score on the third-grade English language arts assessment, not lower than “limited,” for students to be promoted to fourth grade. The State Board will progressively increase this level of achievement until the retention requirements apply to students who do not receive at least a “proficient” score under RC 3301.0710 (A)(2). No later than Dec. 31, 2013, the State Board must submit to the General Assembly recommended changes to scoring ranges on achievement assessments necessary for the successful completion of the Common Core curriculum and assessments in school year 2014-15.
Significant changes were made to RC 3313.608. Beginning with students entering third grade in school year 2013-14, districts and community schools are generally prohibited from promoting a student to fourth grade who scores in the “limited” range on the third-grade reading achievement assessment, with the following exceptions:
• Limited English proficient students who have been enrolled in U.S. schools for less than two full school years and had less than two years of instruction in an English as a Second Language program.
• Special education students whose individualized education programs (IEPs) exempt them from retention under the third-grade guarantee, and special education students whose IEPs or 504 plans show they have received intensive remediation in reading for two school years and were retained in any grade, K-three, but still demonstrate a deficiency in reading.
• Students who demonstrate an acceptable level of performance on an alternative standardized reading assessment as determined by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE).
• Students who received intensive remediation in reading for two school years, but still demonstrate a deficiency in reading, and were retained in any grade, K-three, as long as the student continues to receive intensive reading instruction in fourth grade. This instruction must include an altered instructional day that includes specialized diagnostic information and specific research-based reading strategies that have been successful in improving reading among low-performing readers.
Districts and community schools are required to provide all retained third-graders with instruction in a specific academic field that is commensurate with student achievement levels.
Assessment and intervention
Beginning with school year 2012-13, each district and community school is required to annually assess the reading skills of each student in grades K-three by Sept. 30 and identify students reading below grade level. Districts and community schools must administer to all students the state-developed diagnostic assessment in English language arts or a comparable tool approved by ODE.
Districts and community schools have two immediate responsibilities when a student is identified by the diagnostic assessment as having reading skills below grade level. First, they must provide written notification to the parent or guardian which:
• states that the student has been identified as having a substantial reading deficiency;
• describes the current services provided to the student;
• describes the proposed supplemental services and supports to be provided;
• explains that the student may be retained in third grade if the student scores below the “cut” score as established by the State Board in the “limited” range on the third-grade reading assessment unless the student falls into one of the exceptions;
• specifies that the assessment is not the sole determinant of promotion and that additional evaluation and assessments are available to the student to help parents and the district in knowing when a student is reading at or above grade level and is ready for promotion.
Secondly, districts and community schools must provide intensive reading instruction that includes “research-based reading strategies that have been shown to be successful in improving reading among low-performing readers and instruction targeted at the student’s identified reading deficiencies.”
Districts and community schools also must assign each student who has a reading improvement and monitoring plan and who enters third grade in school year 2013-14 or later, to a teacher who either has received a passing score on a rigorous test of principles of scientifically based reading instruction or has a reading endorsement on the teacher’s license.
School districts and community schools must develop a reading improvement and monitoring plan for each student identified as reading below grade level within 60 days of receiving the diagnostic assessment results. The district shall involve the student’s parent or guardian in developing the plan. The plan must:
• identify the student’s specific reading deficiencies;
• describe the additional instructional services and support that will be provided to remediate the student’s deficiencies;
• include opportunities for parental involvement in those services and support;
• specify a process for monitoring the student’s receipt of the services and support;
• provide a reading curriculum during regular school hours that helps the student read at grade level, provides scientifically based and reliable assessment, and provides initial and ongoing analysis of the student’s reading progress;
• state that the student may be retained in third grade for failure to pass the third-grade reading achievement assessment.
For each student retained in the third grade, districts and community schools must:
• Provide intense remediation services until the student is able to read at grade level. These services must include intensive interventions in reading that address the areas of deficiencies, including, but not limited to, no less than 90 minutes of daily reading. Other services are optional.
• Establish a policy for mid-year promotion if the student demonstrates that he or she is reading at or above grade level and is reading proficiently in accordance with standards developed by ODE.
• Provide a high-performing teacher as determined by the teacher’s student performance data and performance reviews, when such data is available.
• Offer the option to receive services from other service providers, but they must be screened and approved by the district or ODE.
SB 316 includes summer reading camps as an option for services offered to retained third-graders, but it does not mandate summer service. It also eliminates the requirement under current law that summer remediation must be provided in a school or community center and not on an at-home basis.
Reporting requirements
Districts and community schools are explicitly required to submit the results of the K-three diagnostic assessments in English language arts and math to ODE. Also, they are required annually to report to ODE on district implementation and compliance with the third-grade guarantee requirements. In addition, the districts and community schools are required to report any information requested by ODE about the reading improvement and monitoring plans. ODE will then issue a report on collected data.
Community schools
SB 316 requires community schools to comply with the existing law requiring each school district to adopt a promotion and retention policy. In addition, community schools are now required to comply with the terms of the third-grade reading guarantee.
Policy implications
The phrase “board of education” was added to RC 3313.608 in Section (B), which is the portion of the law that requires districts to adopt policies and procedures covering the new English diagnostic assessment. An unintentional consequence of this new language is the requirement that boards adopt a policy and regulation by Sept. 30, 2012. (Prior to the language change, only a district-level policy was required.) Unfortunately, the quick movement of SB 316 through the legislature did not allow for much notice to districts to adopt a new policy and regulation. An option for districts that normally do two readings when adopting new policies is to use policy BFF, Suspension of Policies, to expedite the process. BFF allows districts, with a majority vote of the board members present, to take action contrary to existing policy.
The new required policy, IGBEA, Reading Skills Assessments and Intervention (Third Grade Reading Guarantee), and its corresponding regulation, IGBEA-R, are available for download with this edition of PDQ. And remember, when you update your board policies, make sure to update the section index, cross-references and code finder index.
While boards must adopt a policy and regulation on this topic, the law has no specific requirements on the content, so boards may customize the language to fit their needs so long as the district complies with the requirements set forth in the law.
Also included and available for download with this edition of PDQ is an updated version of policy IGBE, Remedial Instruction, which reflects the new English language assessment requirements for K-three students, the annual Sept. 30 deadline and the requirement for “intensive reading instruction” as soon as a reading deficiency is identified.
SB 316 also requires two updates of IKE, Promotion and Retention of Students. One update makes reference to the district-level, mid-year promotion plan that boards must develop, and that update is available for download with this edition of PDQ. The second update will reflect changes related to the options a district has when a third-grade student doesn’t attain the minimum required score on the English language reading assessment. These changes affect those students who enter third grade after June 30, 2013, so ODE has provided guidance that this policy update is not required until the end of school year 2012-13. Look for an updated version of policy IKE in the February 2013 PDQ.
ODE guidance
Because of the extent of the changes to the Revised Code and the different effective dates that appear throughout, there has been confusion on how to apply the changes. ODE has created a Guidance Document to help districts navigate the new third-grade reading requirements. The document can be found at http://links.ohioschoolboards.org/23286.
We suggest that districts with additional questions about implementation of the new provisions contact ODE for further guidance.
New provisions for early entrance to kindergarten or first grade
by Megan Greulich, policy consultant
Senate Bill (SB) 316 addressed early entrance to kindergarten or first grade. The bill made several changes to existing early entrance requirements, including updates to district policies dealing with mandatory kindergarten and early entrance age. The SB 316 provisions go into effect in September, so it is important for districts to understand the changes and the impact they will have on district procedures.
The majority of the changes appear in Ohio Revised Code Section (RC) 3321.01. First, SB 316 removes the existing provisions allowing for early admittance of students who fail to meet the age requirements to attend kindergarten or first grade. In particular, the removed language provided for the development of standardized testing programs to determine if a student who has yet to meet the age requirement should be admitted early. This language is replaced with new requirements, but it is important to be aware that though the provision has been removed, nothing prevents districts from continuing to require standardized tests or other assessments to determine early entrance if so provided under their acceleration policies.
The new language provides for early admittance to kindergarten or first grade in accordance with the district’s acceleration policy adopted under RC 3324.10. The new language under RC 3321.01 also provides that a child who does not meet the age requirement for admittance to kindergarten or first grade must be evaluated for early admittance upon referral by the child’s parent or guardian; an educator employed by the district; or a preschool educator or pediatrician who knows the child. The new language still provides for early entrance, but adjusts the requirements for implementation and evaluation of students wishing to enroll prior to meeting the age requirements.
As a result of these changes, the language referring to the old provisions of RC 3321.01 should be removed from policy JEBA, Early Entrance to Kindergarten, and replaced with the updated language. The remaining sample policy language that refers to evaluation and assessment after student referral for early admittance can remain intact since districts may still carry out this procedure under their acceleration policies. The remaining language in policy JEBA is reiterated in sample policy IKEB, Acceleration, and therefore needn’t be adjusted.
Districts also should review acceleration policies and procedures since the new provisions refer to the procedures developed by those policies. Some districts have adopted OSBA’s acceleration policy and others have adopted the Ohio Department of Education’s (ODE) model acceleration policy. OSBA’s policy complies with ODE’s model policy, but is general, so it does not require any changes. On the other hand, ODE’s model acceleration policy specifically refers to the language that has been removed and replaced, necessitating revisions. Additionally, since district policy is often customized beyond the sample language, districts should check their acceleration policies to ensure none of the soon-to-be outdated language appears in current board policy.
Completing kindergarten is a prerequisite for admittance to first grade. SB 316 also removes provisions allowing for a waiver of kindergarten completion. The old language allowed for a kindergarten waiver by a district’s pupil personnel services committee for students who meet the age requirement and possess other necessary skills for first grade, but have not completed kindergarten. Language referring to this provision appears in policy JEB, Entrance Age (Mandatory Kindergarten). The waiver language should be removed from the policy.
Although there is an opportunity for students to enter these grades early under the new provisions, the language changes have adjusted the requirements. Districts should update existing policies and procedures to reflect these changes.
Academic standards and model curriculum changes
by Kenna Haycox, policy consultant
Senate Bill (SB) 316 changed the law related to model curriculum and statewide academic content standards. Theses changes present an opportunity to review Ohio Revised Code Section (RC) 3301.079 and requirements for the State Board of Education adoption of a model curriculum and state academic content standards.
Current process
By law, the State Board periodically adopts statewide academic standards for grades K-12 for English language arts, mathematics, science and social studies. The standards specify:
• the core academic content and skills students are expected to demonstrate at each grade level to be prepared for postsecondary education and workplace success in the 21st century;
• the development of skill sets that promote information media and technological literacy;
• interdisciplinary, project-based, real-world learning opportunities.
A recent addition to the social studies standards came from SB 165, effective June 29. The bill requires the integration of the original texts of the Declaration of Independence; the Northwest Ordinance; the Constitution of the United States and its amendments, with an emphasis on the Bill of Rights; and the Ohio Constitution, along with their original context, into the social studies standards for grades four-12. This integration was to be completed by July 1, along with updated standards. The state will release an updated model curriculum and a list of suggested grade-appropriate supplemental readings that teachers may use as a resource to help students read the documents in their original context.
After completing the standards in English language arts, mathematics, science and social studies, the State Board will adopt standards and curriculum for technology, financial literacy and entrepreneurship, fine arts and foreign language. The State Board also will adopt the most recent standards developed by the National Association for Sport and Physical Education.
After establishing the standards, the state will design and release appropriate model curricula. It is important to note that districts may implement the model curricula, but are not required to. It is a local district decision to implement the model curricula or a different option. There is sometimes confusion as to whether this model is mandatory, and it is important to note that by current law, these model curricula are not required. The curricula adopted must cover the adopted state standards. The required assessments the state is to create (as outlined in RC 3301.079) are based on the state standards and model curricula. With this in mind, and with the transition to the Common Core standards and new assessments, districts may benefit from reviewing the model curricula to determine if they are their best option.
SB 316 changes
A handful of changes were made to RC 3301.079 in SB 316. One of the first significant changes is that no later than June 30, 2013, the State Board will adopt model curricula for K-12 that embed career connection learning strategies into regular classroom instruction. This curricula is to be developed in consultation with any of the offices housed in the governor’s office that deal with workforce development.
With the increase in digital and blended learning, the law now states that when standards or model curricula are adopted, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) will provide information on using blended or digital learning in delivering standards. Blended learning for this purpose is defined as “the delivery of instruction in a combination of time in a supervised physical location away from home and online delivery whereby the student has some element of control over time, place, path or pace of learning.” Digital learning means “learning facilitated by technology that gives students some element of control over time, place, path or pace of learning.” It is important that districts review this information as it becomes available and determine how it may benefit their local educational environment.
The last significant change to RC 3301.079 is that at least 45 days prior to the adoption of updated academic standards, the superintendent of public instruction must present these standards, or model curricula, to the House and Senate Education committees. Previously, this language only referred to initial deadlines. This change impacts any future changes the State Board makes to academic standards or updated model curricula.
Summary
It is important for districts to be aware of any changes to state standards and model curricula. While local districts can choose to adopt their desired curricula, the models that ODE presents may be helpful to your district. There are no specific policy changes based on these changes to the law. You currently should have the required policy IF, Curriculum Development, in place. Additionally, IFD, Curriculum Adoption, outlines the board’s role in curriculum adoption. These policies outline the district’s role in curriculum development; most of the requirements stem from Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3301-35-04. OAC 3301-35-04 (B) requires school districts to implement districtwide curricula and instructional programs. OAC 3301-35-04 (B)(5) requires districts to adopt a course of study for each subject taught; these courses of study must be guided by the state-adopted academic content standards.
As your district adopts courses of study, check the most recent state standards and model curricula for any changes that may have been made to ensure compliance. In particular, check the new social studies standards that integrate the original documents, as well as the upcoming standards based on delivery through blended or digital learning, and the integration of career connection learning standards. While policy changes are not needed to address the SB 316 changes on curricula development and adoption, it is important for districts to stay informed on the state standards and model curricula.
Update on mid-biennial budget review changes
by Megan Greulich, policy consultant
Several changes stem from Senate Bill (SB) 316, some of which require adjustments to current policy language. Other changes, such as those listed below, include minimal or no changes to district policy. Regardless of whether there are policy changes, districts should be aware of the implications. There will surely be more adjustments and information to come, particularly regarding the new Ohio Teacher Evaluation System, but for now, here are some topics of which you should be aware.
BMI screenings
House Bill (HB) 153 caused some confusion over body mass index (BMI) screening requirements. Originally, the screenings were set up as an opt-out program, which required filing a waiver to avoid participating in the program. HB 153 kept portions of the requirements and removed others, which caused confusion for districts over whether a waiver was still required.
After HB 153, waivers technically were no longer required under the law due to the removal of certain provisions. However, there was discussion of Gov. John Kasich’s intent and whether it matched the remaining legal requirements. An effort was made under SB 316 to clear up the confusion. SB 316 keeps the BMI program, but makes it an opt-in rather than an opt-out, thus making waivers unnecessary.
Your board policy manual likely does not cover this program, so these changes should not require policy updates. If you do refer to the BMI program in your manual, you should update the language to reflect the changes and procedures that your district carries out in light of the updated program and requirements.
Beverage requirements
HB 153 made adjustments to the SB 210 (2010) beverage requirements, and SB 316 further changed those requirements. SB 316 repeals the requirement that at least 50% of beverages available for sale from food services programs, vending machines or school stores consist of water or other beverages that contain no more than 10 calories per eight ounces.
Changes to the beverage requirements likely will not affect board policy since such detailed information is usually kept separate from the board policy manual. The beverage requirements have changed several times since their introduction under SB 210, and for that reason, OSBA does not recommend adopting it into board policy. However, some districts may have chosen to include the original beverage chart in the board policy manual as a regulation or exhibit. Check your board policy manual to be sure that you update this language if it’s something your district has included.
Emergency closings
Unlike the other two topics, a policy dealing with emergency closings is required and should appear in your board policy manual. However, the language in that policy can vary. The SB 316 changes are not required to appear in the policy, but districts may want to update policy language to be clear.
SB 316 added “law enforcement emergencies” to the definition of calamity day. OSBA’s sample policy EBCD, Emergency Closings, discusses calamity days generally, but districts may wish to be clearer by adding law enforcement emergencies to the list of reasons the superintendent may close schools, which appears at the beginning of the policy. Again, this is not required, but may be useful for clarity. An updated version of this policy is available for download.
These are some of the odds and ends that may or may not affect your board policy manual, but items you should definitely be aware. There will be more discussion of other changes that have the potential to affect policy in upcoming PDQ issues. Watch for future changes.
Is your purchasing procedures policy up-to-date?
by Megan Greulich, policy consultant
Treasurers juggle many responsibilities, so it is important to ensure that board policy sets a standard flexible enough to allow treasurers to use their expertise in carrying out their duties. It also is important to ensure that policies dealing with treasurer responsibilities are updated. One policy that has changed in recent years is DJF, Purchasing Procedures.
In the June 1997 edition of Policy Development Quarterly (PDQ), we discussed the new State Use Law. Here’s a quick summary of the information covered. Ohio Revised Code Sections (RC) 4115.32-4115.35 created a state commission for the purchase of products and services provided by persons with severe disabilities. These provisions also required state agencies and political subdivisions, including school districts, to determine if products or services were available from this program. Additionally, school districts were required to order products and services from the program if those products and services could be provided in the period required by the school district.
In response to the State Use Law requirements, the Ohio Industries for the Handicapped (OIH) was created to coordinate the purchasing program. At the time, the unemployment rate for disabled individuals was extremely high, reaching well over 50%. While disabled individuals still experience higher rates of unemployment than their nondisabled counterparts, the unemployment rate for individuals with disabilities dropped to 15% in 2011. Although it is still a high rate, it is an improvement on the employment inequities that these individuals faced in 1997.
In 2005, a sunset provision was added to the Ohio Revised Code, providing for the abolishment of OIH no later than July 1, 2007. This section also provided for RC 125.60 and RC 125.6012 to govern procurement of products and services provided by people with work-limiting disabilities from qualified nonprofit agencies upon abolishment of OIH. Policy DJF, Purchasing Procedures, is not required, but districts choosing to keep the policy were, in the past, required to keep language referencing the State Use Law requirements. If your district has chosen to keep this policy, you should remove the State Use Law language, as it is no longer required.
Be sure to update your purchasing procedures policy by removing the outdated language. A sample version of policy DJF, Purchasing Procedures, is available for download, with the changes clearly marked. Having up-to-date and flexible treasurer-related policies in place will allow your treasurer to carry out his or her responsibilities in the most efficient and effective manner.
School properties disposal changes
by Megan Greulich, policy consultant
Senate Bill (SB) 316 changes the state law requirements for school properties disposal. In 2011, House Bill (HB) 153, the biennial budget bill, made several changes to the school properties disposal provisions, and SB 316 extends some of the changes and adds new requirements.
The first significant change is the addition of college-preparatory boarding schools to the right of first refusal requirements. This means that when a district decides to dispose of real or personal property that exceeds $10,000 in value, the district must now offer a right of first refusal to both community schools (as required under current law) and college-preparatory boarding schools (as newly required under SB 316). As a result, policy language should be updated to add college-preparatory boarding schools where reference is made to the right of first refusal.
The budget bill also added new requirements for the sale or lease of unused school facilities to community schools. This information was discussed in detail in the August 2011 edition of Policy Development Quarterly (PDQ). SB 316 extends this requirement to include college-preparatory boarding schools. Not unlike the right-of-first-refusal language, this provision also should be updated to reflect the extension to college-preparatory boarding schools.
SB 316 also specifies that the only qualified parties who may participate in auctions or lotteries occurring under sale or lease of unused school facilities provisions are those who have notified the district treasurer of an intent to buy or lease the property in response to the district’s initial offer. This provision creates a new requirement that extends the initial budget bill language. Under the new language, notification of intent to buy or lease the property must be made to the district treasurer. Additionally, only qualified parties who have provided this initial notification may participate in any auctions or lotteries stemming from the provision.
Under both the right of first refusal and sale or lease requirements, the new SB 316 language also specifies that any appraisal conducted to determine the fair market value of the property must be not more than one year old. This clarifies some questions arising from the budget bill language about how fair market value is determined. This is specific procedural language and should not require adjustment to current board policy. But because policy language is often customized to fit district needs, districts should ensure that adjustment is not needed.
SB 316 also permits, but does not require, boards of education to offer unused school facilities for sale or lease to the governing authorities of community schools with plans stipulated in their contracts entered into under state law to either relocate their operations to the territory of the district or to add facilities to be located in the territory of the district. This is an option for interested districts, but is not required. This provision also does not require any updates to board policy.
SB 316 extends the list of entities that may directly purchase real or personal school district property without purchasing it at public auction. Nonprofit institutions of higher education with certificates of authorization under state law and governing authorities of chartered nonpublic schools are now included on the list of entities to which districts may sell property in this manner. The policy simply refers to the procedure set forth by state law, so policy changes are not necessary regarding this change.
Language on this topic appears in policy DN, School Properties Disposal, and an updated version of DN is available for download. The policy is not required, and districts may choose to simply follow the requirements in state law rather than adopting a policy statement on the topic. If your district has this policy, it is important to look at the language to ensure that the new provisions are incorporated for clarity and compliance with the new SB 316 provisions.
An update on the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System
by Kenna Haycox, policy consultant
The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) was to release its model policy for the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) at the end of July. We have been very involved with ODE in the drafting process and are working on finalizing our sample language, which complies with ODE’s model policy. Once OSBA’s sample policy and regulation are completed, we will provide it to our policy subscribers through a special e-alert version of the Policy Development Quarterly. We also are planning regional and evening workshops for later this year to provide OTES information and training to local district leadership. Keep your eyes open for more information.