august 3, 2015 montgomery county esc: administrator’s retreat … pp.pdf · 2019-08-01 · •...

Montgomery County ESC: Administrator’s Retreat Legal Updates 2015

Bill Deters – [email protected]

Presented by:

August 3, 2015

mailto:[email protected]

• HB 64- Budget Bill

• Legislative Year in Review • HB 7- School Testing • HB 367- Education Bill • HB 178- School Safety • Diabetes Reporting

• Recent Guidance & Rules

• 2014-2015 Case Law Review

• Changes to Evaluations (Again!) • OTES and OPES • OTES for Guidance Counselors

• A Note on State Cap for Student Activities Programs

Agenda

Am. Sub. HB 64- Budget Bill

• Scholarship Programs

• Jon Peterson and Autism scholarship • Increases amount for both scholarships from 20 to $27,000,

max amount is 27,000, but actual amount is lesser of amt charged by special education program or 27,000

• Levies • Municipal income tax share

• Municipal corporation may enter into agreement with city, local or exempted village school district that shares same territory

School Finance and Taxation

• Municipal Income Tax share (cont.) • Geographic qualifiers: municipal corporation can’t be

more than 30% outside of district and portion of district outside must be in another muni corporation with 400,00 or more population.

• Income tax, purpose of which is to provide financial assistance to the school district.

• Must enter into written agreement prior to proposing outlining:

• Tax rate, • % of revenue paid to district or method of calculating that %

or amount, which may be subject to periodic change, • First year tax will be levied • Date of election on the question • Method and schedule by which payment will be made by the

municipal corporation to the district.


• District may levy property taxes for community schools and allocate part of the levy to the district

• If not a municipal district, may allocate all of the levy to partnering community schools.

• Required ballot language varies if all to partnering community school or portion to district.

• Partnering community schools

School Finance and Taxation: levies

• Extension of tax exemption for improvements • Board of township trustees (15,000 or more) may extend

exemption from taxation by amending resolution for an additional period of 15 years. (5709.73)

• Cannot increase percentage of improvement exempted.

• Township trustees must notify board of education (unless BOE has waived notice) as usual (5709.83).

• Funding reports (3317.01) • ADM funding is based on 3 reports of enrollment- new

language states that prior to first report, enrollment shall be calculated based on the third report submitted by the districts for the previous fiscal year.


• TPP phaseout/supplement • (3317.021) Tangible personal property of electric

company, generation • Governor vetoes: provisions that would have

exempted electric company generation, raised T&D property tax, and distribution

• Resumes phaseout in FY 2016. However, districts will not receive less in FY 2016 by receiving a TPP supplemental foundation aid that will equal their state foundation aid and TPP fixed rate operating reimbursements in FY 2015.

• Governor veto: removed this same supplement for FY 2017.

• Governor veto: removed provision that would have required OBM to move 12 million from GRF to TPP supplement fund.


• Increases CAT revenue to the general revenue fund from 50% to 75%, reduces share credited to district tangible property tax replacement fund from 35% to 20% beginning 7/1/15

• ESC funding changes • Per pupil state payment amount is $33 for all ESC’s

• Modifies payments if ESC merges or ceases operation.

• ESC dissolution • Prohibits ODE from assessing member ESC districts for an

ESC that dissolves prior to 7/1/15 if ODE’s expenses exceed dissolving ESC’s assets.


• JVS funding • Includes graduation bonus, recalculation of excess costs for special education

students at ©(1) • GOVERNOR VETO Enacted bill removed language requiring career tech

funds to be spent on specified things- therefore still required to spend 75% on education related expenditures and no more than 25% o personnel

• Special education funding for Medicaid • Qualified Medicaid school provider responsible for timely repayment of any

overpayment discovered by federal or state audit. Dept. of Medicaid not responsible.

• Joint Medicaid oversight committee • Will monitor actions of the Dept. of Medicaid beginning July 1, 2015- June 30, 2018

• Ed Choice scholarship • Slight changes to eligibility framework according to performance index score

(lowest 10% of school districts among all school buildings as determined by ODE)

• Grades K-8: $4,250 to $4,650 • Grades 9-12 funding amount changes

• 2015-16- $5,900

• 2016-17- $6,000


School funding formula changes

• Funding guarantee • Each district get at least the same amount of state aid in FY 2016

and FY 2017 as was received in FY 2015- JVSD’s associated services funds exempted from guarantee in FY 2017

• School district capacity measure • Value index, median income index, determination of capacity

measure • Total ADM for THIS calculation in 2016- use fiscal year 2015, for

2017, use fiscal year 2016

• Calculation of district state share index • School district median income index calculation changes • Total ADM for 2015 and 2017 for THIS calculation only means

total ADM for fiscal year 2015


• Increases in special education funding categories

• New calculation of excess costs for students attending a JVSD.

• Bonuses in funding formula paid by state for graduation rate and 3rd grade reading proficiency (3317.0215, 3317.0216) calculation in the statute.

• For districts

• JVSD’s

• STEM schools

• Community schools


Public depository changes Each public depository must provide security for repayment by doing one of the following:

Securing uninsured public deposits by pledging to public depositor securities of aggregate market value at all times equal to 105% of total, OR

Securing the uninsured public deposits by pledging to the state treasurer a single pool of collateral for the benefit of every public depositor in the state.

Public depository must execute agreement with public depositor documenting the entire arrangement between parties meeting FDIC standards for corporations.

Public depository must (used to be permissive) designate a trustee, and enter into custodial agreement with bank and district.


• Joint Education Oversight Committee created • Committee “shall select, for review and evaluation education

programs at school districts, other public schools, and state institutions of higher education that receive state financial assistance in any form.”

• Review and evaluation may include any of the following:

• Assessment of the uses schools make of state money they receive, determination of the extent that money improves performance in areas for which money was intended.

• Whether education program meets goals, has adequate operating/administrative procedures, does only authorized activities, is efficiently managed, or has any undesirable or unintended effects,

• Examine pilot programs to determine if they suggest ways to deal with problems

New House and Senate Joint Committee

• Report for each review and evaluation to General Assembly

• General Assembly may direct a report date which the committee may vary is necessary

• May review bills or resolutions and prepare reports, transmit to G.A., and may include recommendation about the bill’s “desirability” as a matter of public policy.

• May hire staff and consultants to advise (103.47)

• Chair may summon Rick Ross or higher ed director to appear and if summoned, must appear at date and time specified.

Joint Education Oversight committee

• Committee may investigate any school district, other public school, or college. All of the following apply in an investigation:

• Committee and its staff may enter and inspect a school district

• Committee not required to give advance notice or prior arrangement before an inspection

• No person may deny member/employee “access to office” when needed for inspection.

• Investigations authorized by oversight commission chairperson, who must have approval from committee, president of senate and speaker of house.

• Investigations during normal business hours

• Chair may issue subpoenas for persons and records, summon witnesses and require them to bring documents. Chair may administer oaths to witnesses.

Joint Education Oversight committee

• State testing • Prohibits using general revenue funds to purchase

PARCC assessment • Prohibits use of Race to the Top funds for any

purpose related to achievement assessments • High school graduation requirements (3313.614):

• Allows students who entered 9th grade prior to 2014-2015 to graduate by completing 1 of the 3 graduation pathways for students

• Students who have not passed all OGTs may graduate by meeting graduation requirements that combine partial OGT passage and graduation pathway completion

ODE/District changes

• State testing changes continued: • Adds deadlines for reading diagnostic assessments:

Sept. 30 for grades 1-3 and Nov. 1 for kindergarten • Allows use of virtual administration (electronically

with teacher in another location) for reading skills assessments

• 2015-16 elementary and secondary assessments administered once per year in the second half of the year

• Beginning 2015-16, ODE to send districts list of individual scores of students who took state achievement assessment w/in 45 days of assessment

• Extends 1 year districts may not be required to administer state achievement assessments online, ODE must furnish free of charge all materials, districts may use any combo of online or paper


• Annual teacher of the year program • New language, ODE may establish

• Notwithstanding 2921.43 (ethics law, soliciting or accepting improper compensation), person may donate to recognition program.

• Teacher may accept gifts and privileges without ethics law issue.

• Expands district’s ability to contract with public and private providers for remediation and intervention in in math, science, reading, writing, social studies from grades 1-6 to any grade outside regular school hours.


• Exemptions for High-Performing School Districts (RC 3302.05)

• Qualifying districts to be exempt from state mandates as outlined by ODE in rules adopted by ODE

• This provision was proposed to be repealed but was retained in law in the final bill.


• Bright New Leaders program • Alternative path for training and licensure to be primary

and secondary administrators, promote placement in districts with more than 50% poverty. Alternative principal or alternative admin license for successful completion, ODE will adopt rules in accord with 3319.27 rules.

• Gifted Education feasibility study • An ESC and gifted children association with ODE will study

establishing 16 regional community schools for gifted children in Ohio. No timeline.

• Licensure • Teacher and principal evaluation- alternative framework • Guidance counselor evaluation • Guidance counselor standards- educator standards

board will develop


• Report cards • Delays reporting of overall letter grades for

districts or buildings on the state report card to 2016-17

• Extends the safe harbor provisions related to achievement assessment results and report card ratings through the 2016-2017 school year (no sanctions or penalties based on letter grades.)

• Prohibits ODE from ranking districts and schools based on academic performance for the 2014-2015 school year

• Extends deadline to 1/31/16 for ODE to rank districts according to expenditures for 2014-15

State Report Cards

• Requires state board to establish proficiency percentages, and deadlines to meet such percentages, for each report card indicator based on a state assessment. (was optional)

• Extends deadline for ODE reports re: students with disabilities for 2014-15 to 1/31/16.

• High school student academic progress measure

• Makes it permissive for ODE to develop

• Delays reporting this grade until at least 2017-2018

• Prohibits including this grade in a school or district’s overall report card grade in 2014-15, 2015-16

State Report Card

• Ohio Teacher Residency Program • Modifies who can provide mentoring

• Allows districts to determine whether counseling is needed

• Allows career-technical educators to forgo first 2 years of the Program

• Educator Licensing • Includes provision to exempt consistently high-performing

teachers from the requirement to complete additional course work (and any other requirements by LPDC’s) to renew license.

• State board will define “consistently high performing teacher.”

• As applicable, extends duration of pupil-activity program permit to the same number of years as the applicant’s educator license

• Administrator Licensing • See Bright New Leaders program

Educator Licensing

• College Credit Plus (CCP) • Includes provision that requires colleges to provide an associate degree

pathway (at least 60 credit hours but no more than 72) (3365.14) • Adds a requirement that biennial report detailing status of program include an

analysis of quality assurance measures related to the program. • Add language that nonpublic secondary schools need not participate in CCP. • Allows eligible student to participate during summer term of participating

public/private or out of state college. Must notify principal of school by date set of intent to participate in summer term (rule TBA). Student or parent responsible for transportation. (3365.034)

• GED • Must not have HS diploma, must have written approval from parent, official

high school transcript. ODE will approve all applications, but only if: • Person got 75% attendance in one semester continuous enrollment in HS diploma

program

• Person shows good cause (state board will issue rules determining good cause)

• New requirements do not apply to someone who has physical or mental condition that does not permit attendance at school

• Person is moving or has moved out of state

• Person has an ‘extreme, extenuating circumstance’ as determined by dept.

• Person is receiving or completed final year of instruction at home

Student/Curricular Requirements

• GED, continued • Any student who withdraws to take GED must be counted as

a dropout in the district or school in which they were last enrolled (for purposes of calculating graduation rates)

• Graduation/diploma changes • Nonpublic, non-chartered school diplomas

• May be granted a high school diploma by that school.

• Serves as proof of completion of high school education, even if they don’t take assessments.

• Home instruction diplomas • Allows diplomas issued by student’s parent/guardian/custodian

• Superintendent of district in which student entitled to attend school must sign certification that student/parent have complied with home school state laws.


• Active shooter/school safety barricades • Board of building standards shall adopt rules for using a

barricade device in an emergency and in active shooter drills. Shall not be permanently mounted to the door, shall provide training and documentation of training.

• Student record redaction • Districts may not alter, truncate or redact student record

rendering it unreadable or unintelligible when transferring records.

• STEM • STEM schools may enroll out of state residents- no state funds. • Tuition calculated by what school would have received if student

were resident- ODE does not pay this to district; student pays school that amount as tuition.

• Must report numbers to ODE. (3326.101) • STEM schools also eligible for graduation bonus school funding

(3326.32) • STEM schools may request waiver during 2015-16 from

administering state achievement assessments for up to 5 years, must use alternate assessment (3302.15)


• Open enrollment- preschool disability • $4,000 per pupil amount deducted from district of residence to

district of attendance

• Must report to ODE number of preschool students with disabilities open enrolled in adjacent or other district

• Districts that have an agreement (not open enrollment) with another district that is providing education may require the district of residence to pay tuition calculated by by using existing law (rather than half that amount)


• Math Curriculum Requirement • Allows students entering 9th grade on or after July 1, 2015 who are

taking courses on a career-technical track to take a career-based math as an alternative to the Algebra II graduation requirement (3313.603)

• Credit based on Competency for 7th & 8th Graders • Establishes a method which allows 7th and 8th graders to meet

curricular requirements for high school credit based on subject area competency (including credit by exam) or a combination of subject area competency and classroom instruction.

• Begins with 2017-18 school year- applies to community and traditional public schools.

• Competency-Based Educational Pilot Program • ODE will provide grants for districts, STEM, ESC consortia,

community schools

• Application to ODE by 11/1/15

• Only 5 selected by 3/1/16, must agree to annual performance review


• Adult diploma pilot program • Allows adult students over 22 to get a diploma for attending an

approved community college or technical school

• Supt of public instruction approves, rules specified

• State board issues the diplomas under this section

• ODE pays the formula amount to approved institution

• Must pass an assessment

• Provides a 3 tier career pathway training program and funding

• Tier one; $4,800 (more than 600 hours of technical training)

• Tier two: $3,200 (more than 300 hours)

• Tier three: $1,600 (300 hours or less)

Student/Curricular requirements

• College credit for international baccalaureate • Colleges must adopt policy to grant course credit to students

who successfully completed IB

• Identify specific course credit and number of credits that will be granted, minimum scores required on exams

Student/Curricular requirements

• Construction manager at risk • Surety bond provided to public authority by CMAR pursuant to OFCC

rules

• OSFC qualifying partner for STEM facilities • Group of city, exempted village or local school districts part of career-

tech compact and have entered into an agreement to operate a STEM education program. Must be in adjacent counties, each with population of 40K but less than 50K, and one must border another state. Specific enough?

• OSFC will develop guideline to assist the qualifying partnership in acquiring facilities for the STEM program and provide funding.

• Qualifying partner may levy taxes 5705.2112 ro provide funding, a member district will be fiscal agent.

• Sale and leaseback of public property • Political subdivision may convey owned property to purchaser who must

upon closing lease back all or part of building back to owner/lessor. Lessor must be obligated to make improvements to all or part of bldg which may include:

• Renovations

• Energy conservation measures

• Other measures to improve functionality, reduce operating costs

Property

• Real Estate appraisal • Tax commissioner makes rules re: determination of true value of

real estate. New law specifies method to be used for appraisals not specifically provided for by rule must be made in accord with treatises on real estate appraisal and applied uniformly to all parcels.

• Sale to high performing community schools • Requires that a district must first offer property for sale to a high

performing CS’s sponsored by the district and other new CS’s with a track record of high performance before offering it to all start-up community schools.

• Specifies that the purchase price of property or unused facilities must not be more than the appraised fair market value.

• Adds that CS’s purchasing school property under mandatory provisions may not sell property for 5 years unless it sells or transfers to another community school or college prep boarding school in the district.

Property

• Bidding • Statutes in Ch. 153 refers to bidding, opening of bids, etc.

• Allows bids filed electronically (existing law), and now bid guaranty may be made available to school district after bid opening by using an electronic verification and security system under OFCC rules.

• Mythbuster: continuing proposal to raise competitive bidding threshhold for school districts to 50K from 25K was proposed and did not make it past the Senate version.

• Lease purchase agreements for school facilities • Used to say ‘buildings”. New language specifically allows

buildings, playgrounds, parking lots, athletic facilities, and safety enhancements.

• Cannot be for more than 30 years or more than the useful life of the asset.

Property

• Site-based management councils • Repealed! No more site based management councils.

• Student transportation • Funding – calculation of district transportation payment

• Statewide transportation cost per student x district qualifying ridership, transportation cost per mile x total number of miles driven, greater amount of those two x the greater of 50% (down from 60%) of district’s state share index

• Adds a “transportation supplement percentage” which seems to replace a similar pro rata addition calculation.

• Districts no longer have to report data used to calculate transportation payments through EMIS

Other Provisions

• Student transportation, continued • Impracticability determinations no longer have to be sent to

ESC

• ESC no longer has ability to disagree and order district to transport.

Other Provisions

• Special elections • Board of elections must file with board of county

commissioners nd secretary of state estimated costs of special election 15 days prior to deadline for submitting an issue, election to office in each precinct in the county.

• Board of elections must provide to political subdivision the estimated cost, of which the political subdivision must pay 65% (formula in statute)

• 60 days post-election, board of elections notifies entity of actual cost, if it’s more, political subdivision pays different and if less, county commissioners will remit difference to political subdivision, both 30 days after notification.

• Ethics • Financial disclosure filing date changed from April 15 to

May 15.

Elections and ethics

• JVSD • Rotating board member term

• In JVSD even number member districts, if plan on file calls for an additional member appointed on a rotating basis, the term of office for that member is one year.

• JVSD transition agreements • If JVSD gains territory due to school district

consolidation before 6/30/15, must enter into transition agreement with JVSD that lost the territory providing for revenue replacement as outlined in the statute.

Elections and ethics

Other Provisions • Civil Service

• New ground for termination: “unsatisfactory performance”

• When civil service employee changes from classified to unclassified, retain right to return for 5 years (124.11)

• Collective Bargaining • Excess benefits

• Use of value added from assessments in 2014-15 and 2015-16 cannot be used for assessing T and principal evaluations or when making decisions about tenure, dismissal, retention, or compensation unless memorandum of understanding stipulating to its use.

• Evaluations must be based solely on T or principal performance if value added progress dimension applicable and no other measure available to determine student academic growth.

Health Care • Waiver of PPACA

• Supt. of Insurance shall apply to US Secretary Health and Human Services for innovative waiver re: health insurance in Ohio.

• Application shall include request for waivers of both employer and individual mandates under 26 USC 4980(h) and 5000(a).

• Requires Medicaid director to seek federal waiver that all non-disabled adult Medicaid recipients to enroll in an HSA and pay 2% of family income up to $99/yr.

• Ohio Medicaid must contribute $1,000/year to each individual’s account and health plans cannot purchase services for that person until HSA is exhausted.

Health Care • Health care best practices

• Removes requirement that health plans for public employees follow SEHCB or DAS best practices, CBA’s not required to include the best practices.

• Eliminates public employees health care fund in state treasury.

• DAS duties:

• Provide representative cost estimates of options for health care plans

• Release standards that may be considered as best practices for health care plans

• Removes annual report on status of health care plans complying with best practices.

• Removes ability to adopt rules to enforce sponsor compliance with health care best practices (since best practices no longer required).

Health Care Student health care services • May be used in lieu of appointing a school

physician or contracting with an ESC to provide a school nurse or contracting with a health district for physician, dentist or nurse services.

• May contract with a hospital or licensed health care center, or federally qualified health care center

• Requirement that school nurse provide services does not apply to these contracts as long as person providing services has credential equivalent to RN or LPN.

Miscellaneous budget finds • COG’s and ESC’s

• ESC serving as fiscal agent for COG in which fiscal agent may enter into agreement with governing body of COG members to lend money to member for purpose of improving infrastructure within member territory within Ohio.

• COG may provide health care benefits to member governments’ employees and dependents and may pool funds from all members, including out of state members if laws permit for payment of health care claims and expenses.

• Concealed carry- school safety zone

• Auditor law enforcement trust fund • Auditor was made a beneficiary of fund of sale of contraband

and forfeited property called the “auditor of state investigation and forfeiture trust fund”

• Must file report with OAG by Jan 31 of next calendar year noting amounts expended and foe what purposes.

Miscellaneous budget finds • County child abuse prevention specialist

(3109.172) • Supt. Of school district with largest enrollment in the counties

within a region will appoint representatives to serve within a child abuse and child neglect prevention region, which has a council.

• Purpose of the council is to do needs assessment, produce a plan and report to children’s trust fund board. Regional prevention plans for allocation of funding.

• Sunshine law- Open records (149.43)

• Community Schools • Preschools- allows community school to operate preschool

and makes subject to standards (3301.52) • Adult ed: persons over 22 may enroll for 2 consecutive years

in dropout prevention/recovery program to earn diploma. Must report FTE enrollment and ODE will pay UP TO 5K (used to say 5K) based on person’s successful completion of graduation requirements. (3314.38)

Miscellaneous budget finds • Community schools (cont). ESC’s that sponsor conversion community schools must be approved by

and enter written contract with ODE (3314.02)

Removes ability of ESC sponsoring out of county community school to sponsor a new school unless ODE approves via agreement.

Preschools must meet minimum standards for preschool programs adopted by ODE.

Changes to formula amount 3314.085 defining graduation bonus and third grade reading proficiency percentage.

Transportation: if district and nonpublic/community school have agreement by 1st day of school (previously July 1) of year agreement takes effect for Saturday/Sunday transportation. (3327.01)

Adds community school governing board to to impracticability to transport determination. (3327.02)

May request waiver of administering state achievement assessments during 2015-16 for up to five years, must use alternative assessment system. Waiver will go to not more than 10 CS’s. (3302.15)

Miscellaneous finds

• Straight A program • Grants to districts, ESC’s, JVSD’s, STEM schools, boarding

schools, school buildings, education consortia, colleges, and private entities partnering with above to:

• 9 member governing board, annual report

• Specifies criteria for awarding grants

• $15 million appropriation in each fiscal year

• EMIS stick (no carrot) • Districts, STEM and community schools not using

common, uniform data definitions and format standards may not receive funding until in compliance

Legislative Year in Review

Signed by the Governor on March 16, 2015; effective immediately

Allows students to re-take an end-of-course exam and to make-up a missed end-of-course exam

Prohibits a school from using the following assessments administered during the 2014-2015 school year in any decision to promote or retain a student’s grade level or to provide course credit at any point in a student’s academic career: (1) state assessment scores for grades 3-8

(2) high school end-of-course exams

Exception to this prohibition applies to the English Language Arts assessment for 3rd Grade (3rd Grade Reading Guarantee)

HB 7 - School Testing

HB 367 passed both houses in the final days of the 2014 legislative session, and included a number of changes to education statutes

Some of the major provisions of HB 367 are as follows: Requires each school district to include instruction in prescription

opioid abuse within the health curriculum. Changes the end-of-course exam that students will take in science

The state is switching the final exam from physical science to biology starting next year

However, this year the districts can choose which of the two science tests to offer students

Modifies the long-standing Ohio Achievement Assessment third-grade reading test Under HB 367, all third-graders will have to take the reading OAA

again in the spring

HB 367- Lame Duck Education Bill

Some of the major provisions of HB 367, continued… Requires a half-credit course of World History for Ohio high

school students Removes a current school funding formula provision stating that

a student's enrollment is considered to cease when the student has 105 continuous hours of unexcused absences

Modifies the definition of full-time student The new law considers any student that is enrolled in at least five

credits to be a full-time student

Permits a Board to contract with an ESC for the purpose of a school nurse, a registered nurse, or a licensed practical nurse who is employed by the ESC providing diabetes care to students in the district in accordance with current law.

Prohibits public and nonpublic school officials from denying admission to a child placed in a foster home or residential facility solely because the child does not present a birth certificate or other comparable document upon registration (however, must provide one within ninety days after entry into school).

HB 367- Lame Duck Education Bill

House Bill 178 passed both houses of the legislature in the final days of 2014 and was signed into law

Became effective 3/23/2015

Department of Commerce’s Technical Bulletin, “Drills or Rapid Dismissals and School Safety Drills” provides guidance and charts for implementation: https://saferschools.ohio.gov/sites/default/files/HB178-TB15-

001%20-%20FAQ%20-%20final.pdf

HB 178- School Safety Bill

https://saferschools.ohio.gov/sites/default/files/HB178-TB15-001 - FAQ - final.pdf









Drills or Rapid Dismissals HB 178 reduces number of drills or rapid dismissals required for school

districts to six drills/dismissals, down from the nine previously required Unless the district does not have smoke detectors or a sprinkler system in all

classroom buildings, the drills/dismissals must be conducted at least nine times during the school year

Instruction regarding tornado warning precautions must still be provided in conjunction with the drills/rapid dismissals and tornado drills must be conducted at least once per month during tornado season (April 1- July 31)

School Safety Drills The bill increases the number of safety drills, such as lockdowns and

evacuations, to three safety drills per school year coordinated with local law enforcement

At least one drill must require students to be secured in rather than rapidly evacuated

Theoretical School Safety Drill Additionally, schools must conduct one staff safety planning exercise per

year Can be with or without students


When must drills/rapid dismissals and school safety drills be completed? At least one drill/rapid dismissal or school safety drill must be

conducted every month of the school year The first drill or rapid dismissal must be within 10 days of the start of

classes

Drills/rapid dismissals must be conducted at varied times of the day

If your school is only required to provide 6 drill/rapid dismissals, the school safety drills cannot be combined with drills/rapid dismissals = 6 drills/rapid dismissals + 3 school safety drills

If your school is required to provide 9 drills/rapid dismissals, the school safety drills may be combined with drills/rapid dismissals = 6 drills/rapid dismissals + 3 drills/rapid dismissals combined with

school safety drills


Additionally, before passing, HB 178 incorporated provisions from SB 266

The provisions make charter schools subject to the same rules as public schools on limiting restraint and seclusion of students

The bill also requires the State Board of Education to adopt rules that establish a policy and standards for the implementation of positive behavior intervention supports and the use of physical restraint or seclusion on students


• Under RC 3313.7112, established by HB 264, school districts must annually report to ODE by Dec. 31 the number of students with diabetes enrolled in the district during the previous school year & the number of errors due to administration of diabetes medication during the previous school year.

• ODE originally stated that it would require districts to report 2013-2014 school year data by Dec. 31st, 2014.

• The Office for Exceptional Children (OEC) has took the lead in developing reporting methods for this information.

• Survey became available this summer, and were due on June 30th. The survey and additional resources can be obtained at http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/Diabetes-Management.

Diabetes Data Reporting

http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/Diabetes-Management





• Pending legislation

• Former House Bill 454 • Language inserted into HB 234 on final days of lame duck

session, but amended out of the bill before passage

• Re-introduced to the House on 1/28/2015 as HB 20

HB 20 - Concealed Handguns

• Current Law- RC 2923.122(A)&(B) • Prohibited from carrying deadly weapon, dangerous ordnance,

or item indistinguishable from weapon in a school safety zone

• Includes various exceptions, as stated previously.

• Proposed provisions of HB 20: • Provides an additional exception for individuals who are

dropping off a person, document, or item at school

HB 20 - Concealed Handguns

• Removes language from current law which exempts from the prohibition

• A person carrying with concealed handgun license

• In school safety zone

• In compliance with federal law

• Not entering school premise or activity, and

• Not knowingly in a place (except school safety zone) where concealed carry is prohibited

HB 20- Concealed Handguns

• Proposed exception: • Allows an individual with a concealed handgun license to

possess a handgun in a school safety zone if:

• The individual is a driver or passenger of a vehicle that is immediately in the process of picking up or dropping off any person, document, or item,

• The handgun does not leave the vehicle, and

• If the individual leaves the vehicle, the individual locks the vehicle

HB 20- Concealed Handguns

Recent Guidance & Rules

• On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a Final Rule changing the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”) definition of “spouse.”

• Effective March 27, 2015, spouses in same-sex marriages shall have the same opportunity as spouses of heterosexual marriages to exercise FMLA rights regardless of where they live.

• Therefore, even though Ohio prohibits same-sex marriage, if a couple was legally married outside of Ohio in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, the same-sex spouse(s) must receive the protections of FMLA.

• The Final Rule modifies the definition of “spouse” in several ways. • The definition of “spouse” will use a “place of celebration” rule rather than

a “state of residence” rule. • Same-sex spouses who reside in a state that does not recognize same-sex

marriage, but were legally married in a state that does, will be considered spouses under FMLA.

• The definition of “spouse” will expressly include persons in lawfully recognized same-sex and common law marriages, as well as marriages that were validly entered into outside of the United States, so long as those marriages could have been entered into in at least one state.

FMLA Spouse Definition Change

• This change is intended to create a consistent application of FMLA rights across the country, even when different states have different laws regarding the underlying marriages.

• Further, this definitional change means that eligible employees, including those in a same-sex marriage, regardless of where they live, will be able to: take FMLA leave to care for their spouse with a serious health condition; take qualifying exigency leave due to their spouse’s covered military service; or take military caregiver leave for their spouse so long as the couple was legally married in a state that recognized the marriage.

• Another change within this Final Rule entitles eligible employees to take FMLA leave to care for their stepchild (child of employee’s same-sex spouse) regardless of whether the in loco parentis requirement of providing day-to-day care or financial support for the child is met.

• This Final Rule also entitles eligible employees to take FMLA leave to care for a stepparent who is a same-sex spouse of the employee’s parent, regardless of whether the stepparent ever stood in loco parentis to the employee.

FMLA Spouse Definition Change

• In November 2014, OCR & DOJ provided joint guidance in the form of “Frequently Asked Questions” regarding the obligations of public schools to meet the communication needs of students with hearing, vision, and speech disabilities

• Three federal laws outline these obligations: • (1) IDEA

• (2) Section 504

• (3) Title II

• Although compliance with IDEA and Section 504 will typically meet the requirements under Title II, there are times when it will not

Title II- Effective Communication

• Title II requires public schools to provide auxiliary aids and services to students with hearing, vision, and communication disabilities to ensure that these students have effective communication opportunities

• Including students with multiple disabilities who have one of these disabilities

• This requirement is not dependent on a request for an aid or service


• Specifically, public schools have the following primary obligations: • To provide auxiliary aids and services so that a student can receive and

convey information as effectively as students without disabilities such that the student has an equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from educational services and programs

• Including acquisition or modification of equipment or devices

• Unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of the program or be an undue financial and administrative burden

• To give primary consideration to the auxiliary aid or service requested by the child or family member with knowledge of the child’s disability and with the ability to provide relevant information about effective aids and services

• To provide the auxiliary aids and services in a timely manner for all school-related communications in a way that protects the privacy and independence of the student

• Which may include extracurricular activities

• To provide the same opportunities to any individual (in addition to students) who seeks to participate in or benefit from the school district’s services

• Such as parent-teacher conferences, meetings, performances, open houses, field trips, and student registration

• To continue to assess the auxiliary aids and services provided to ensure they continue to provide the student with effective communication


• The following factors can help determine which aids and services are needed to provide effective communication

• Student’s mode of communication • Complexity of the student’s communication needs • Context in which the communication is occurring • Amount of people involved in the communication

• Examples for students with vision or hearing needs: • Audio recordings • Qualified readers • Braille materials • Magnification software • Large print materials

• Examples for students with speech disabilities: • Computer • Portable device that writes or produces speech • Spelling to communicate • Qualified sign language interpreter


• When an interpreter is needed: • The interpreter must be qualified to interpret both receptively

and expressively with the individual

• School districts are prohibited from requiring an individual to provide his or her own interpreter

• Exceptions:

• If there is an emergency involving an immediate threat of safety and an interpreter is not available, the school can ask a minor child or adult to interpret

• If the individual makes a request to bring his or her own interpreter, the individual may provide an adult to interpret

• But not a minor child


• How are these requirements different than the requirements to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under IDEA?

• Under Title II, a school district may need to provide auxiliary aids and services before IDEA eligibility has been determined

• Title II obligations may be triggered even with students who are not eligible under IDEA

• Because the IDEA FAPE standard (provide a meaningful educational benefit) is different than the Title II standard (communication as effective as others), schools may need to provide auxiliary aids and services beyond those provided through the student’s IEP

• Although schools can use an IDEA evaluation to determine a student’s communication needs, the school may also need to provide additional assessments beyond those provided through IDEA

• Any costs of providing aids, services, or evaluations for Title II that are not required under IDEA for FAPE, cannot be paid using IDEA funds


• What procedures are needed to comply with Title II? • Each district must appoint an ADA Coordinator, which may also be the

district’s Section 504 Coordinator • The ADA coordinator will either be the head of the school district or a

designee who has authority to make spending decisions

• If a school district denies the request for an auxiliary aid or service because it would fundamentally alter the nature of the program or be an undue financial and administrative burden

• The decision maker must put the reasons for denial in writing

• The district would typically need to provide an alternate aid or service that doesn’t alter the program or cause undue financial or administrative burden

• If a dispute arises, parents can file a Title II complaint with OCR or a grievance under district grievance procedures

• As long as there is not a remedy under IDEA, a parent can also file a civil action in federal court without the requirement of exhausting administrative remedies

• Guidance Document: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-faqs-effective-communication-201411.pdf


http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-faqs-effective-communication-201411.pdf










• K.M. v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist. and D.H. v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2013)

• No Violation of IDEA- But still a violation under ADA • Two students with hearing disabilities argued that the districts

violated IDEA & FAPE when they provided alternative accommodations for the students’ hearing impairments instead of the CART service requested by the parents

• The district court found that the districts complied with IDEA, and therefore, their ADA claim was also dismissed

• The 9th Cir. reversed on the ADA claim indicating that a district’s compliance with IDEA does not necessarily establish compliance with Title II of ADA

Effective Communication- Relevant Case Law

• On August 20, 2013, OSERS & OSEP released a Dear Colleague Letter stating the following:

• “Bullying of a student with a disability that results in the student not receiving meaningful educational benefit constitutes a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the IDEA that must be remediated.”

• Bullying Defined:

• “Bullying is characterized by aggression used within a relationship where the aggressor(s) has more real or perceived power than the target, and the aggression is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time.”

Bullying of Students with Disabilities

• Students with disabilities are bullied at a higher rate than typical peers

• If bullying causes the student to lack meaningful educational benefits, regardless of whether the bullying is related to the student’s disability,

• The district must remedy the situation by convening an IEP team and revising the IEP as appropriate

• Cautions: • Schools must not unilaterally change the student’s placement,

frequency, or location of services

• IEP teams must be cautious when making the decision to change a student’s placement due to victimization of bullying, as the change may deny the student FAPE and the placement may no longer be considered the student’s LRE

Bullying of Students with Disabilities

• If the student with the disability is the student engaging in the bullying behavior:

• If you impose discipline, follow normal regular ed and special ed disciplinary processes

• If you do not impose discipline, you should still consider whether the bullying behavior is a manifestation of the child’s disability

• If it is a manifestation, convene an IEP team meeting and revise the IEP as appropriate to address the bullying behavior

• Be careful not to make placement decisions outside of the IEP process

Bullying by Students with Disabilities

• Bullying of students with disabilities may also be considered discriminatory harassment under:

• Section 504, Title II, Title VI, & Title IX

• Disability-based harassment involves bullying and harassment based on the student’s disability

• Disability-based harassment does not have to occur more than once to trigger a district’s duty to respond

• But, Supreme Court ruled that a one-time incident was not enough to trigger monetary damages (Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999).

• Additionally, higher burden for law suit (than OCR complaint) requiring deliberate indifference

• Does not have to “include intent to harm, be directed at a specific target, or involve repeated incidents”- Dear Colleague Letter (2000)

OCR Complaints & Discrimination Suits

On October 21, 2014, the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released new guidance to assist schools in addressing bullying of students with disabilities This guidance supplements the dear colleague letter from OCR that was

published in 2013

Under Section 504 and Title II, public school districts are prohibited from discriminating against individuals because they have a disability

Under Section 504, schools must provide students with disabilities equal access to educational opportunities Which includes a requirement to provide these students with FAPE

FAPE services for students with disabilities are typically provided to students through a Section 504 plan or IEP

OCR’s new guidance clarifies that bullying of a student with a disability on any basis may result in a denial of FAPE

OCR New Guidance on Bullying of Students with Disabilities

School districts have an obligation to address the bullying of students with disabilities

OCR addresses complaints of bullying by investigating two possible violations:

(1) Whether there has been disability-based harassment

(2) Whether the bullying has resulted in denial of FAPE

OCR considers the following factors when investigating disability-based harassment violations:

“Was a student with a disability bullied by one or more students based on the student’s disability?”

“Was the bullying conduct sufficiently serious to create a hostile environment?”

“Did the school know or should it have known of the conduct?”

“Did the school fail to take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end the conduct, eliminate the hostile environment, prevent it from reoccurring, and, as appropriate, remedy its effects?”

If the answer to each of these is “yes,” there is a disability-based harassment violation

Additionally, even if only one of the above questions is answered “yes,” OCR has a basis for investigating whether the student with a disability was denied FAPE as a result of the bullying


In considering whether a denial of FAPE occurred, OCR asks the following: “Did the school know or should it have known that the effects of the bullying

may have affected the student’s receipt of IDEA FAPE services or Section 504 FAPE services? For example, did the school know or should it have known about adverse changes in the student’s academic performance or behavior indicating that the student may not be receiving FAPE?”

If the answer is “no,” there is no FAPE violation. If the answer is “yes,” the following additional factor is addressed: “Did the school meet its ongoing obligation to ensure FAPE by promptly

determining whether the student’s educational needs were still being met, and if not, making changes, as necessary, to his or her IEP or Section 504 plan?”

If the answer is “no” and the student was not receiving FAPE, there would be a FAPE violation

Guidance Document: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-bullying-201410.pdf


http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-bullying-201410.pdf





• Was a district deliberately indifferent, therefore in violation of Section 504, under the following facts?

• Facts: • Student with Asperger’s was the victim of repeated disability-based

bullying • District addressed individual incidents of bullying that had been

reported (but did not address bullying as a school climate issue) • No reports of bullying occurred during the student’s spring

semester of 10th grade or fall semester of 11th grade • The student committed suicide during her 11th grade year

• 11th Circuit Ruling: • The case was dismissed because the parent failed to show that the

district was deliberately indifferent (unreasonable based on what the district knew at the time). It was reasonable for the district to believe that bullying and harassment had ceased.

Long v. Murray County School District, 522 F. App’x 576 (11th Cir. 2013).

Bullying Case Scenario

• Was the district deliberately indifferent when it failed to respond to a parent’s complaint that her child was fearful of another student?

• Facts: • A parent of a 5th grade student with Autism told his teacher that he was fearful of another

male student and was scared of coming to school

• The principal told the parent that the school would deal with the concern appropriately

• The student was attacked approximately a month later by the male peer which left the student with black eyes and a swollen lower lip

• The child’s fears of school increased which led to doctor & psychologist appointments, the child being moved down one grade level, and ultimately, a month later, the child failing to return to school

• The student received home instruction for about 2 years before the district agreed to an placement at another school

• Parent filed a suit against the district on several grounds of discrimination under Section 504 or Title II, conspiracy among district employees, denial of FAPE under IDEA

• Court Ruling: • IDEA claim was thrown out because didn’t follow administrative exhaustion

• The conspiracy claim was thrown out because all members of same entity

• Constitutional discrimination claims failed due to lack of “actual knowledge” and “deliberate indifference”

Bullying Case Scenario

• Was a district compliant in addressing teacher-student harassment?

• Facts: • Parent complained of teacher’s conduct towards high school

student with autism • Teacher surrounded the desk of the student with a cardboard

box that said “Bad Kid Fort” • District responded by suspending the teacher without pay for 5

days after concluding that the student’s behavior leading to the teacher’s conduct was at least partly related to his autism

• OCR concluded: • Although the district addressed the parent’s complaint by

disciplining the teacher, the district violated Section 504 and Title II by failing to inform the parent of the outcome of the complaint

Wood County Schools, 113 LRP 52440 (OCR 08/27/13)

Teacher-Student Harassment Scenario

• On July 14, 2014, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released updated guidance regarding pregnant employees.

• The guidance serves as a reminder that pregnancy conditions may be protected under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

• Therefore, employers may be required to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions.

• Pregnancy–related conditions include current, past, and potential pregnancy conditions.

• Under the PDA, “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” must be treated “in the same manner as other applicants or employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work.” This includes light duty and leave policies.

• The EEOC specifically states that an employer who provides light duty positions to employees injured on the job cannot deny a light duty position to a pregnant woman of similar ability or inability to work.

Guidance on Pregnancy

• Employers cannot remove job responsibilities from a woman solely because she is pregnant or likely to become pregnant if the employee is able to perform the job task.

• Therefore, even if an employer has concerns about a pregnant woman’s health or safety, the employer can be still liable in a discrimination claim if the employer removes job responsibilities solely because of the employer’s fear of her health or safety where the employee is otherwise capable of performing the duty.

• Temporary impairments due to pregnancy may also qualify as a disability under ADA. Temporary impairments that meet the requirements of a disability under ADA require the employer to provide reasonable accommodations.

• Some examples of possible reasonable accommodations include the following:

• Modifying or eliminating the requirement to occasionally lift heavy items • Allowing frequent restroom breaks • Modifying a work schedule for severe morning sickness • Providing a stool as an accommodation for an employee unable to stand

Guidance on Pregnancy

2014-2015 Case Law Review

• Young v. United Parcel Service • A part-time driver for UPS was advised by her doctor to avoid lifting

anything over 20 pounds

• UPS told Ms. Young that she could not work under a lifting restriction

• Decision issued March 25, 2015: • The Pregnancy Discrimination Act mandates that employers

must provide accommodations to pregnant employees when needed if the employer provides accommodations to other employees with similar work restrictions.

• The U.S. Supreme Court held that policies may have the effect of discriminating against pregnant workers if the policies treat pregnant women differently than similarly situated non-pregnant workers

• The Court’s ruling will trump any conflicting guidance provided by the EEOC

Pregnancy Case Before the U.S. Supreme Court

Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 12-1226 (U.S. March 25, 2015).

U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Same Sex Marriage

• On the two year anniversary of United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that all states must now allow same-sex couples to marry, and further that they must recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states.

• The majority concluded that marriage is a fundamental right and it provides the opportunity for individuals to demonstrate their commitment to each other. The principles that the Court relied on in its decision have been equally applied to opposite-sex marriages. Since opposite-sex marriages are recognized outside of the state where the marriage was sanctioned, it stands to reason that same-sex marriages should be recognized equally in each state.


• When parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) were overruled in the Windsor decision, certain federal benefits became available to same-sex couples regardless of whether the couple’s state of residence recognized same-sex marriages.

• However, certain benefits could still be denied if the couple lived in a state that did not recognize same-sex marriages. Social Security and Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) benefits were modified to allow only same-sex couples living in a state that recognized same-sex marriages to receive the benefits.

• When the FMLA was amended in February of 2015 to include same-sex husbands and wives in the definition of “spouse,” same-sex couples were awarded the same FMLA benefits as opposite-sex couples regardless of which state the couple lived.


• In the short term, the Court's decision likely means that benefits previously offered only to opposite-sex spouses will be made available to same-sex spouses.

• Spouses are entitled to participate in insurance policies for up to 36 months after the death of their spouse, the covered employee, or if a divorce or legal separation causes a loss in coverage.

• Employees are entitled to take FMLA leave to care for a spouse with a serious health condition or take time off if their spouse is on active military duty. Employees may use 12 weeks of unpaid leave if they have work for a district for 12 months or 1,250 hours. Employees who have worked longer are entitled to up to 26 unpaid weeks of leave to care for the military family member. If an employee dies, wages and personal earnings will be awarded to the surviving spouse first.

• Spouses of retirees are also entitled to State Teachers Retirement Board (“STRB”) benefits including health and surgical care coverage. Both the retiree and spouse/ex-spouse must be over the age of 65 and not already eligible for Medicare to qualify for the retirement benefits.


• Bottom line: • Now that the Supreme Court has determined that same-sex marriage

bans are unconstitutional, all same-sex couples will be entitled to the same benefits provided to opposite-sex couples, regardless of where they were married.

• For now, it appears this will be the most immediate concern for districts to be aware of. The response from health insurance companies is developing and we will keep you apprised of those developments.

• There will be changes and updates in other areas of the law as well. The Court specifically mentioned a list of areas in which married couples are entitled to certain benefits, including but not limited to taxation, inheritance and property rights, spousal privilege in the law of evidence, medical decision-making authority, adoption rights, the rights and benefits of survivors, birth and death certificates, professional ethics rules, campaign finance restrictions, workers’ compensation benefits, health insurance, and child custody, support, and visitation rules.

• Not every one of these areas will substantially affect school districts, but as the effect of the decision develops over time, there will be new awareness issues for schools.

U.S. Supreme Court decides Religious Accommodations Case

• The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that an employee or job applicant “need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision” to not hire him, to fire him, or to limit him in any way in violation of Title VII. Facts:

• An Oklahoma teenager and devout Muslim, wearing a traditional hijab head scarf, applied for a job as a sales clerk for an Abercrombie & Fitch store.

• While she scored well on the initial hiring assessment, the assistant manager asked a company representative if wearing a scarf, for what she thought was religious purposes, conflicted with the company’s “Look Policy” that prohibited caps and headwear.

• Abercrombie determined that the teenager’s headscarf did violate the policy, and she was not hired.

• The Equal Rights Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit on behalf of the teenager, alleging her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been violated.

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 14-86 (U.S. June 1, 2015).

U.S. Supreme Court decides Religious Accommodations Case • In an opinion decided June 1,2015, the Supreme Court reasoned that in

the context of Title VII, the phrase “because of” requires only that an individual’s religious practice not be a “motivating factor” behind the refusal to hire an applicant.

• The Court emphasized that while other antidiscrimination statutes do explicitly require knowledge, Title VII does not. Further, Title VII doesn’t require the employer to be neutral in policies applicable to religious practices, but instead gives religious practices “favored treatment.” In further discussion, the Court stated “the intentional discrimination provision prohibits certain motives, regardless of the state of the actor’s knowledge.

• Motive and knowledge are separate concepts.” • An employer may have knowledge without using that knowledge as

motive to refuse to hire an applicant or an employer may act with the motive of avoiding an accommodation even if he has only suspicion of a need for accommodation.

• The former is not a violation of Title VII, but the latter is. • A request for accommodation or certainty of the religious practice may

help establish motive, but it is not required for a determination of liability.

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 14-86 (U.S. June 1, 2015).

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Facebook Threats

• The case involved a man who wrote graphic lyrics on Facebook, which among other things referenced killing his estranged wife, law enforcement, and school students. This was the Supreme Court’s first freedom of speech case involving cyber speech.

• The issue before the Court was whether “conviction of threatening another person under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten” or whether “it is enough to show that a ‘reasonable person’ would regard the statement as threatening.”

Elonis v. United States, No. 13-983 (U.S. June 1, 2015).

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Facebook Threats

• The Court limited its discussion to whether negligence was an appropriate mental state for conviction under the statute and concluded that the defendant must have some level of awareness greater than negligence. Because there was some subjective intent required (more than mere negligence), the government must prove more than the fact that a reasonable person would consider the statements threatening.

• The Court’s decision failed to provide insight into limitations on threatening speech provided over the Internet.

• However, the standard for school discipline remains the same: “Did the behavior cause a substantial disruption to the educational environment or there is a reasonably foreseeable disruption?” This includes when a student’s speech is violent or threatening to members of the school community.

Elonis v. United States, No. 13-983 (U.S. June 1, 2015).

U. S. Supreme Court Rules Statements Made to Teachers are Admissible in Court • Statements a little boy, who came to school with bruises and

other injuries, made to his Ohio daycare teachers and to social workers were used to convict his mother’s boyfriend, Darius Clark of assault, endangering children, and engaging in domestic violence. As a result, Mr. Clark was sentenced to 28 years in prison.

• Clark argued that the statements the 3-year-old boy made to his teachers was testimonial evidence used to convict him, and that using these statements at trial was a violation of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.

• Because teachers and daycare workers are required to report suspected abuse of children, Clark argued that the teachers and social workers were more like law enforcement agents who obtain information to prove past events to potentially be used as evidence for trial.

Ohio v. Clark, No. 13-1352 (U.S. June 18, 2015).

U. S. Supreme Court Rules Statements Made to Teachers are Admissible in Court • The U.S. Supreme Court, held that the introduction of L.P.’s

statement at trial did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Questions were asked with the purpose of responding to an ongoing emergency; specifically, whether the child and other children in the home were in danger and whether it was safe to release the children to the caregiver. Teachers, the Court determined, are not in the role of uncovering and prosecuting criminal acts, but are charged with protecting children. Thus, statements made to them are less likely to be testimonial than those given to law enforcement officials.

• School teachers and staff have a mandatory duty to report suspected abuse. In reporting, the immediate concern is to protect a vulnerable child and immediately stop further harm. Teachers and other mandatory reporters will typically be able to testify at trial regarding statements made by a minor when such statements are obtained under the circumstances of suspected abuse and questioning used to ensure the child’s safety.

Ohio v. Clark, No. 13-1352 (U.S. June 18, 2015).

Utah Court Rules Video of Students is Protected Under FERPA • A Utah parent requested a videotape recorded by a camera positioned

outside the classroom of a middle school which contained footage of fight involving his son. The district refused his request, stating that the video contained images of other students and was therefore protected under FERPA and would be released if and when it obtained written consent from all of the parents of the other students shown in the video.

• The parent then requested a redacted copy of the video. The district filed a supplemental memorandum with the court, indicating the cost of redaction.

• The Court ruled that the video contained information directly related to students and the images constituted information identifying the students. The Court determined that the videos were “maintained by or on behalf of an educational agency” and therefore were education records. The Court noted that the U.S. Department of Education’s Family Policy Compliance Office (FCPO) states that “a parent may only inspect a school videotape showing his or her own child engaged in misbehavior if no other students are pictured.” Therefore, the Court argued, the videotapes were education records for each of the students depicted in the video.

Bryner v. Canyons Sch. Dist., No. 20130566 (Utah App. Ct. May 29, 2015).

Utah Court Rules Video of Students is Protected Under FERPA

• The Utah appellate Court held that the video had to be redacted before the parent could view it, and the District could charge a reasonable fee for the redaction process to remove the images of other students in the video.

• While this case involved a Utah school district, all states are uniformly subject to federal FERPA disclosure restrictions. In general, FERPA prohibits the disclosure of a student’s “protected information” to a third party. In Ohio, a separate statute applies to and defines directory information, and in certain circumstances permits release of identifiable student information to the public.

• Video of students is almost always considered a protected education record for each child depicted in the video. Schools are therefore prohibited from disclosing video without consent. As in the case above, the cost of any redactions, which would likely be significant, can be charged to the party requesting the records.

Bryner v. Canyons Sch. Dist., No. 20130566 (Utah App. Ct. May 29, 2015).

• The recent Friebel decision explicitly sets forth two factors to help determine whether each of these prongs has been satisfied:

• 1. Whether the time, place and circumstances of the injury demonstrate that it occurred in the course of the employment, and

• 2. Whether under the totality of the circumstances, there is sufficient causal connection between the injury and the employment to establish that the injury arose of the employment.

• Workers’ compensation claims are fact-specific and the Court’s opinion urges other courts to weigh the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident with the following factors:

• 1. The proximity of the scene of the accident to the place of employment

• 2. The degree of control the employer had over the scene of the accident, and

• 3. The benefit the employer received from the injured employee’s presence at the scene of the accident.

Worker’s Compensation

Changes to Evaluations (Again!)

This Past Year’s Changes Before the Budget Bill

• Exemptions for Accomplished and Skilled teachers, retiring teachers, and teachers on leave for fifty percent or more of the time

• Prior law also created an optional alternative framework under ORC 3319.114

• New Calculation Formula: • After HB 362 allowed school districts the option of evaluating

teachers under an alternative framework, the previously used Evaluation Matrix (or “Look-up Table”) was no longer feasible for calculating teachers’ final summative ratings.

• Therefore, ODE announced last fall a new formula-based calculation will be used with all OTES evaluations, even those subject to the original evaluation framework.

• This change will apply to all OTES & OPES evaluations.

• eTPES will convert the ratings entered for teacher performance (i.e., 1-4), student growth (i.e., 1-5), and, if used, alternative component (i.e., 1-4) into a 600-point scale.

• eTPES will then calculate the final summative rating by applying appropriate weights and percentages to the ratings.

OTES

• Teacher Performance: • Accomplished rating of

4=600 points • Skilled rating of 3=400 points • Developing rating of 2=200

points • Ineffective rating of 1=0

points.

• Student Growth: • Effective rating of 5=600

points • Above Average rating of

4=400 points • Average rating of 3=300

points • Approaching Average rating

of 2=200 points • Below Average rating of 1=0

points.

• Alternative Component: • Effective Rating of 4=600

points • Rating of 3=400 points • Rating of 2=200 points • Rating of 1=0 points.

• The final summative rating will then be provided on a 600-point scale:

• Accomplished: 500-600 • Skilled: 300-499 • Developing: 100-299 • Ineffective: 0-99

OTES

HB 64 Budget Bill Changes to Evaluations

• Alternative Framework

• OTES for Guidance Counselors

• Prohibition on use of value-added data for teachers and principals

NEW Alternative Framework

• Makes the following changes to the alternative framework for teacher evaluations starting in the 2015-2016 school year

• Removes requirement that teacher performance and student growth be the same percentage

• Teacher performance=50%

• Student academic growth measure=35%

• Remainder of evaluation must be one or any combination of the following:

• Student surveys

• Teacher self-evaluations

• Peer review evaluations

• Student portfolios, or

• Any other component determined appropriate by the school board

• No longer requires, but merely permits districts to select the alternative tools from amongst ODE’s approved instruments

NEW OTES for Guidance Counselors (ORC 3319.113)

• New law requires State Board of Ed to develop a standards-based state framework for the evaluation of school counselors that:

• Aligns with the standards for school counselors adopted by the Educator Standards Board

• Requires counselors to demonstrate their ability to produce positive student outcomes using metrics, including those from the school or district’s report card

• Requires annual evaluations for all school counselors except those considered high-performing, and also that a written report be provided to counselors

• Provides for professional development of staff

• Results in final summative score of Accomplished/Skilled/Developing/Ineffective

OTES for Guidance Counselors

• Requires each Board of Ed to develop and adopt a standards based school counselor evaluation policy by September 30, 2016

• It becomes operative at the expiration of any CBA covering school counselors that is in effect on the bill’s effective date

• Policy must be included in any renewal of the CBA • Sound familiar???

• Policy must be implemented beginning in the 2016-2017 school year, and procedures for using the results to make employment decisions shall begin in 2017-2018

OTES for Guidance Counselors

• ODE will dictate what information will need to be reported each year (likely through eTPES) .

• Same privacy restrictions apply – ODE cannot require that name or personally identifiable information of any school counselor be reported to ODE

• Specifies the bill’s requirements will prevail over any collective bargaining agreement

• The Ohio School Counselor Association developed an Ohio School Counselor Evaluation System framework a few years back in light of the OTES evaluation changes. While not recognized at this point officially by ODE, it may provide insight into what the final system will look like. You can view materials at:

http://www.ohioschoolcounselor.org/page-1611028.

http://www.ohioschoolcounselor.org/page-1611028




Prohibition on use of Value-added Data

• SECTION 263.650. (A)(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Revised Code to the contrary and except as provided in division (A)(2) of this section, the board of education of a school district, the governing authority of a community school established under Chapter 3314. of the Revised Code, or the governing authority of a STEM school established under Chapter 3326. of the Revised Code shall not use the value-added progress dimension rating that is based on the results of the assessments prescribed under sections 3301.0710 and 3301.0712 of the Revised Code administered in the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years for purposes of assessing student academic growth for teacher and principal evaluations conducted under sections 3311.80, 3319.02, 3319.111, and 3319.112 of the Revised Code or when making decisions regarding the dismissal, retention, tenure, or compensation of the district's or school's teachers and principals

Prohibition on Use of Value-added Data

• SECTION 263.650. (A)(2) A school district, community school, or STEM school may enter into a memorandum of understanding collectively with its teachers or principals stipulating that the value-added progress dimension rating that is based on the results of the assessments prescribed under sections 3301.0710 and 3301.0712 of the Revised Code administered in the 2014-2015 or 2015-2016 school year may be used to assess student academic growth for purposes of teacher and principal evaluations or when making decisions regarding the dismissal, retention, tenure, or compensation of the district's or school's teachers and principals.


• SECTION 263.650. (A) (3) For a teacher of a grade level and subject area for which the value-added progress dimension is applicable, if no other measure is available to determine student academic growth as required under section 3311.80, 3319.112, or 3319.114 of the Revised Code, teacher and principal evaluations shall be based solely on teacher or principal performance


• SECTION 263.650. (B) As used in this section, "value-added progress dimension" means the value-added progress dimension prescribed by section 3302.021 of the Revised Code or an alternative student academic progress measure if adopted under division (C)(1)(e) of section 3303.03 of the Revised Code

Questions?

Cincinnati Office:

1714 West Galbraith Road

Cincinnati, Ohio 45239

P: 513.421.2540

Columbus Office: 300 Marconi Boulevard, Suite 205 Columbus, Ohio 43215 P: 614.705.1333

Cleveland Office: 6000 Lombardo Center, Suite 120 Cleveland, Ohio 44131 P: 216.487.6672

Bill Deters [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

august 3, 2015 montgomery county esc: administrator’s retreat … pp.pdf · 2019-08-01 · •...

Documents