Note: To print this issue, you may need to choose the "shrink to fit" option in the print window.
In this issue: State Board revises teacher evaluation framework • Update on graduation assessments • Best practices for drafting handbooks • Changes to operating standards for students with disabilities • Wellness plans • Sample policies included with this issue
State Board revises teacher evaluation framework
by Kenna S. Haycox, policy consultant
The State Board of Education took action in September to adopt a revised teacher evaluation framework as a result of House Bill (HB) 362, which made changes to the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES). Districts are required to comply with both state law and the State Board framework for teacher evaluation, so it is important to be aware of these new changes.
Before revised, the evaluation framework was based solely on the original OTES model: 50% student growth and 50% teacher performance. The adjustments to the framework reflect the original model and alternative framework. The alternative framework created through HB 362 is 42.5% student growth measures, 42.5% teacher performance and 15% from one alternative component approved by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) for the 2014-15 school year. Beginning next school year, the alternative framework allows districts to use anywhere from 42.5% to 50% for both student growth measures and teacher performance, provided the two are equal percentages, but any additional percentage must still be made up of one of the alternative components. The revised framework is available here and visually illustrates how the original framework and alternative framework are set up.
The significant changes that impact districts using either model relate to levels of student growth and the method for determining a teacher’s final summative rating. Teachers previously were placed in one of three categories for student growth: above, expected and below. The revised framework replaces these with five categories of student growth measures: most effective, average, above average, approaching effective and least effective. Language tied to student growth measures and whether teachers have a say in selecting their credentialed evaluator — and what level of involvement they have in developing professional growth or improvement plans — also has been updated as a result of this change.
Teachers with a “most effective” rating for student growth will develop a professional growth plan and may choose their credentialed evaluator for the evaluation cycle — this previously applied to teachers with “above” student growth. Teachers with “average” and “above average” ratings (previously “expected”) for student growth will develop a professional growth plan collaboratively with the credentialed evaluator and will have input on their credentialed evaluator. Teachers with a rating of “approaching average” and “least effective” (previously “below expected”) student growth will develop an improvement plan with their credentialed evaluator and the administration will assign the evaluator.
In addition to the revised student growth ratings, the framework previously contained a grid indicating how teachers would receive a summative rating. This grid essentially showed what box a teacher would fall in — and what the rating was for that box — based on their student growth measure and teacher performance measure; this box identified them as accomplished, skilled, proficient or ineffective. This grid was removed from the framework. The framework now states that a teacher’s performance rating will be combined with results of student growth measures and, if selected, the alternative component to produce a summative evaluation rating according to ODE requirements. Essentially, the electronic Teacher and Principal Evaluation System will calculate a teacher’s final summative rating when the information is put into the system and the ratings are reached based on points. ODE has posted information for districts as they work to understand the new system for summative ratings.
In addition to providing information on the final summative ratings, ODE has listed the approved instruments for districts using the alternative framework. While you are on ODE’s website, I encourage you to review the Web page on the frequently-asked-questions about HB 362. One of the questions that many districts have asked is if the alternative framework is an option for the Ohio Principal Evaluation (OPES). ODE guidance indicates it is not. The OPES framework is pending revision by the State Board.
Teacher evaluation changes resulting from HB 362 were covered in the August issue of PDQ.
Policy implications
Policy AFC-1, Evaluation of Professional Staff (Ohio Teacher Evaluation System) (also GCN-1), has been updated to reflect the changes to the State Board framework. In addition, check your locally developed policy to make sure nothing conflicts with the changes. Many districts chose to add the final summative rating grid to their policies and this grid should be removed, as it no longer serves as the tool for determining summative ratings.
Update on graduation assessments
by Kenna S. Haycox, policy consultant
The State Board of Education finalized many of the details about new graduation assessments in September. These details provide important information to districts for implementing new legislative requirements that begin with the class of 2018. While the changes do not require any specific policy language changes, it is important to be aware of them and how they impact the class of 2018 and beyond.
One of the responsibilities of the State Board was to designate at least five score ranges for end-of-course exams. These have been set at the following: advanced (five points), accelerated (four points), proficient (three points), basic (two points) and limited (one point). One of the diploma pathways is attaining a cumulative score on the end-of-course exams; the State Board has set this score at 18 points. In reaching the minimum number of points, students must earn at least four points between the math exams, four points between the English exams and six points between the science and social studies exams.
The challenges of students transferring into a district were addressed by the State Board. Students transferring into a district with no previous end-of-course exam scores and only a few courses with corresponding tests will have their graduation points requirements prorated. A chart illustrating this is available. Transfer students still must earn a minimum of five points across the English II and integrated math II or geometry end-of-course exams to graduate. If a student transfers in with only one test or no tests remaining, the student must take the college admissions test right away. If the student does not earn a remediation-free score on the test, he or she must then take the English II and integrated math II end-of-course exams and earn a minimum of five points across the two exams to graduate.
The State Board also addressed some phase-in exemptions and times when students may automatically earn points on end-of-course exams. If a student earned high school credit for a tested course before July 1, 2014, the student automatically earns three graduation points. In addition, the State Board is finalizing details in December to address block scheduling and how this impacts end-of-course exams and points. The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) guidance says students who earn credit for a first semester block course in American history, American government or physical science before Jan. 31, 2015, will automatically receive three graduation points.
Students who automatically earn three graduation points from a course may choose to retake the exam for a higher score. Students who score below proficient on exams may retake the test after they receive some extra help on the material. For students scoring proficient or higher, they may only retake exams if, once they take all the tests, they have not met the minimum points to graduate. To retake exams, they also must receive some extra help on the materials.
The State Board also is charged with determining how advanced placement or International Baccalaureate exams may be used in lieu of end-of-course exams. The approved exams for the 2014-15 school year can be found here. It is important to note that substitute tests are not allowed for math or English assessments.
The State Board still needs to determine a variety of other graduation details, including the college admissions test and job skills assessment to be used. Districts should continue to look for ODE guidance on end-of-course exams as they work to manage the new assessment requirements. While OSBA policy language does not need updated to reflect the assessment changes, it is important to check locally developed policies and handbooks for language in conflict with the new requirements. More information on new graduation requirements for the class of 2018 and beyond is available.
Best practices for drafting handbooks
by Kenna S. Haycox, policy consultant
One of the tasks leadership is faced with every year is handbook development. Comprehensive, well-written student and employee handbooks are essential for effective district governance. As you review them, it is important to understand the relationship between board policy and handbooks. Let’s take a look at some considerations for student and employee handbooks as you begin the updating process for next academic year.
Student handbooks
The purpose of a student handbook is to communicate to students and parents the pertinent policies, procedures and regulations for the school. The handbook should be a guide for students outlining appropriate behavior and academic requirements they need to fulfill. Depending on the size of your district, you may have one or multiple student handbooks. There are several important factors to consider in drafting any student handbook.
The most important factor is to ensure that all rules, regulations, procedures and policies in the handbook are in line with adopted board policy. Many legislative changes were made in the past year that impact your board policies, especially in terms of instruction and students. Handbooks used in previous years may need several significant changes to reflect updates to state law and board policies for the coming academic year. Appropriate board policies should be placed into the student handbook in their entirety.
One example of this is the board-adopted policy and procedure for hazing and bullying. State law requires this policy to be included in any student handbook in the district and the language in this policy comes from requirements of state law. Adding the policy directly as it appears in the board policy manual will prevent any edits that may change the meaning of the policy and take the district out of compliance. Other areas to check include recent changes to extracurricular activities and participation by resident students who are home-schooled or attending science, technology, engineer and math (STEM) schools, community schools or nonpublic schools. You may have language in your handbooks that conflicts with changes you are required to make to your policies. Remember, for example, to remove language allowing the district to require community school students to enroll in an academic course at the school in which they are participating in an extracurricular activity as a condition for participation. Checking your handbook language against these policies is essential to prevent conflicting documents.
It is important to remember that the board should adopt student handbooks every year and these handbooks carry the same weight as board-adopted policies. Much student-specific information — like the student code of conduct or dress code — does not have to be outlined in detail in the board policy manual, but should be covered in the student handbook.
When drafting your student handbook, it is helpful to include a form for parents and students to sign stating they have read and reviewed the handbook and agree to abide by the guidelines. This signed confirmation is helpful to you as an administrator for future issues that may arise with a student or parent.
While every district’s handbook will look different, it’s important to remember all guidelines must be consistent with board policy and across all handbooks to the extent possible. An effectively written handbook that clearly communicates expectations to students and parents will aid administration and staff in effectively managing student concerns and issues.
Employee handbooks
There are different considerations for districts when drafting employee handbooks. The most important factor when creating an employee handbook is an in-depth review of the district's negotiated agreements. Districts must be careful not to include language that conflicts with a collective bargaining agreement. In addition to close review of negotiated agreements, the district needs to carefully analyze and include appropriate references to board policies. Employee handbooks should address more of the day-to-day functions of district operations. Items in an employee handbook may include specific procedures for requesting substitutes, using leave or having lesson plans available in a particular location.
Once again, handbook language should be closely referenced with board policies for consistency and the board should consider approving these handbooks. It also is advisable to have employees sign a form confirming receipt of the handbook and agreeing to comply with it.
OSBA provides a comprehensive employee handbook service for districts. For more information on these services and how they can benefit your district, contact Van D. Keating, director of management services, at vkeating@ohioschoolboards.org or (614) 540-4000.
Tips for success
Here are some basic tips for success when creating and updating your student or employee handbooks.
• Review your current student and employee handbooks and compare language to your board policies. If there is a policy in your employee handbook addressing the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), you will need to review your board policy and regulation GBR and GBR-R, Family and Medical Leave Act. If your student handbook refers to graduation requirements, you need to refer to policy IKF, Graduation Requirements.
• Look at your board policies to see where references are made to student or employee handbooks. This is a good indication you need to add this policy to your handbook or add details for how a policy is implemented.
• Always check the drafted language against your board policy manual and, where appropriate, negotiated agreements.
• Start early but be prepared to update. While it is important to plan ahead in developing your handbooks, be prepared to make any last-minute changes before handbooks are printed and distributed based on board policy changes impacting that academic year.
• Have a plan for communicating necessary revisions. There is a chance that the student handbook you distributed at the beginning of the school year may not be correct by the end of the school year based on changes to board policies. Determine how these changes will be communicated to students and parents, and, where appropriate, employees.
Understanding the connection between policy and handbooks is essential for effective district operations. Taking the time to review handbook language for compliance will help improve district governance.
Policy implications
Now is a good time to check if you have a board policy in place addressing handbooks. Policy CHCA, Approval of Handbooks and Directives, is included for informational purposes.
Changes to operating standards for students with disabilities
by Kenna S. Haycox, policy consultant
Several changes were made to the Ohio Operating Standards for the Education of Students with Disabilities as they appear in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) rules 3301-51-01 through 3301-51-09 and 3301-51-11 through 3301-51-21. The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) has provided a summary document of the changes. The summary document will provide you a basic understanding of the changes. Review the revised administrative code sections and see some of the changes below for more details.
Evaluation and re-evaluation
One of the changes outlined in the summary document is the clarification and separation of the initial evaluation team from a re-evaluation team (OAC 3301-35-01). Under the revised language, the evaluation team is now parents and a group of qualified professionals (previously the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team and other qualified professionals). The evaluation team for a child suspected of having a specific learning disability must include: the child’s regular teacher, or if he or she does not have a regular education teacher, a regular classroom teacher qualified to teach someone the child’s age; if the child is less than school age, an individual qualified by ODE to teach someone the child’s age; and at least one person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic examinations of a child, such as a school psychologist, speech language pathologist or remedial teacher. A re-evaluation team is now defined as the IEP team and other qualified professionals.
The required re-evaluation for children with disabilities transitioning from preschool to kindergarten was removed from OAC 3301-51-06, unless the child is identified as developmentally delayed. For preschool children, no single source of information, such as an individual measure or score, can be used to determine whether a preschool child is eligible for special education (OAC 3301-51-11).
Transition services
Some of the key changes to be aware of about transition services for students involve terminology and timing. Transition services focusing on the development of employment must be in an integrated competitive environment, as defined in OAC. The acquisition of daily living skills and provision of a functional vocational evaluation is to be addressed not “if appropriate,” but when the assessment data supports a need. Under the revised language, transition services must be provided by individuals who have the competencies, experiences and training to meet the specific student’s transition service needs. To meet this requirement, they must either obtain the transition-to-work endorsement or possess specific knowledge and skills outlined in OAC 3301-51-01(A)(65)(b). OAC 3301-51-07 now requires comprehensive transition services be included beginning at age 14 (or earlier if determined appropriate) and updated annually.
Dispute resolution
The changes to OAC 3301-51-05 removed language about dispute resolution conferences remaining confidential. In addition, there now are additional training requirements for impartial hearing officers in dispute resolution. These training requirements will be in accordance with the ODE Office for Exceptional Children requirements.
Implications
Make sure you review the entire ODE summary document for other important changes and review the revised OAC sections. ODE is updating current procedures and guidance. For this academic year, you should still be using the Whose IDEA is This? document and required addendum released in January. ODE will post revised documents as they become available and OSBA will continue to share this information.
Policy IGBA, Programs for Students with Disabilities, and regulation IGBA-R, Programs for Students with Disabilities, are available for download with this issue of PDQ. While there are no changes needed to these policies, you should check your local procedures to determine whether any revisions are necessary based on the OAC changes.
Wellness plans
by Kenna S. Haycox, policy consultant
OSBA has received several questions lately concerning food service audits and requests for wellness plans. The following is intended to provide clarification and help districts locate appropriate information for these audits. The board policies you need to reference include: EF/EFB, Food Services Management/Free and Reduced-Price Food Services; EFF, Food Sale Standards; and EFG, Student Wellness Program.
You also should reference and provide district-level wellness plans that outline how wellness initiatives are carried out in your schools. These local plans may need some updating to comply with recent U.S. Department of Agriculture changes, which were addressed in the August PDQ issue. The policies included with this issue of PDQ should help you confirm you have the most up-to-date versions.
Sample policies included with this issue
Note: Policies and/or regulations marked with an * are required. Check to confirm that the district has a policy and/or regulation.
Revised polices/regulations (add new language shown in bold type and delete language in strike-through type)
*AFC-1 (also GCN-1), Evaluation of Professional Staff (Ohio Teacher Evaluation System)
*GCN-1 (also AFC-1), Evaluation of Professional Staff (Ohio Teacher Evaluation System)
Other
CHCA, Approval of Handbooks and Directives
*EF/EFB, Food Services Management/Free and Reduced-Price Food Services
*EFF, Food Sale Standards
*EFG, Student Wellness Program
*IGBA, Programs for Students with Disabilities
*IGBA-R, Programs for Students with Disabilities