[Ohiogift] HB 555 and Gifted

[JShoemaker at limacityschools.org]

Government Relations sent out a Legislative Watch on December 14, 2012 
summarizing the key components of House Bill 555. To access that 
Legislative Watch, please click here. For a detailed version of the of the 
new grading system in HB 555, click here. Below is an update on the 
value-added requirements for teacher evaluation and collective bargaining 
sections of the legislation.

Value-added: Last minute amendment changes "value-added" requirement for 
teacher evaluations; OEA amendment to lower overall student growth portion 
on new evaluations voted down

A last-minute amendment to House Bill 555 announced the day it was voted 
out of Senate Education Committee requires the student growth measure 
factor comprising 50% of the new teacher evaluations to be based on the 
"value-added" measure, in proportion to the part of a teacher's 
courses/subjects where "value-added" is applicable (up to 100% of the 50% 
student growth measure after July 1, 2014). The "value-added" amendment 
was requested by House Republicans as part of negotiations with the Senate 
to secure House concurrence with all Senate changes to the bill. The 
Kasich Administration also supported the value-added amendment to the 
state framework for the evaluation of teachers, which Kasich created as 
part of his first budget bill (HB 153). 

OEA strongly opposes the "value-added" evaluation amendment to House Bill 
555 and will seek to repeal and replace it in the 130th General Assembly. 
An OEA requested amendment to lower the overall student growth factor on 
the new teacher evaluations from 50% to 25% was offered by Senate 
Democrats, but was rejected by the Republican dominated committee on the 
same day they accepted their amendment to expand the role of "value-added" 
in evaluations. The committee did not allow testimony on House Bill 555 or 
any amendment proposals the day of the committee vote. 

New language regarding "value-added" as part of the student growth measure 
in the state framework for the evaluation of teachers:



 





Current law requires "student growth" to account for 50% of the state 
framework for the evaluation of teachers, as adopted by the State Board of 
Education. The bill requires the state evaluation framework to do the 
following with regard to determining the "student growth" measure to be 
used (ORC 3319.112):
When applicable to the grade level or subject area taught by a teacher, 
the value-added progress dimension established under section 3302.021 of 
the Revised Code, or an alternative student academic progress measure if 
adopted by the State Board of Education, shall be used in the student 
academic growth portion of an evaluation in proportion to the part of a 
teacher's schedule of courses or subjects for which the value-added 
progress dimension is applicable.
If a teacher's schedule is comprised only of courses or subjects for which 
the value-added progress dimension is applicable, one of the following 
applies:
Beginning with the effective date of this amendment (March 22, 2013) until 
June 30, 2014, the majority of the student academic growth factor of the 
evaluation shall be based on the value-added progress dimension (i.e. a 
majority of the 50% of the student growth portion of the evaluation).
On or after July 1, 2014, the entire student academic growth factor of the 
evaluation shall be based on the value-added progress dimension.
Background on implementation process/timeline for House Bill 555 teacher 
evaluation "value-added" language above:

Please note that there are a number of steps required by existing law that 
technically must occur before implementation of the House Bill 555 
evaluation requirements at the local level:

First, House Bill 555 does not become effective until March 22, 2013.
Second, the State Board of Education must incorporate the House Bill 555 
"value-added" changes into the state framework for the evaluation of 
teachers.
Third, the local board of education, in consultation with teachers 
employed by the board, must adopt an evaluation policy that "conforms" 
with the state framework no later than July 1, 2013.
Finally, the local evaluation policy becomes "operative at the expiration 
of any collective bargaining agreement covering teachers employed by the 
board that is in effect on September 29, 2011, and shall be included in 
any renewal or extension of such an agreement." ORC 3319.111(A)

OEA Amendment Removes Collective Bargaining Restriction Applying to Entire 
Statute Governing Continuing Contract Status/Tenure and Limited Contracts 
(ORC 3319.11); Now Only Applies to Deadlines for Notice of Intent to 
Non-Renew and Notice of Intent Not to Accept Re-employment

An amendment to House Bill 555 in House Education Committee added language 
to the end of ORC 3319.11 (Continuing service status - limited contract - 
notice of intent not to re-employ) that would have provided that the 
entire section prevails over any conflicting provisions of a collective 
bargaining agreement entered into on or after the effective date of the 
bill. 

A subsequent amendment secured by the OEA in Senate Education Committee 
removed the restrictive bargaining language passed by the House, replacing 
it with vastly narrower language. This language provides that the dates 
set forth in ORC 3319.11 as "on or before the first day of June" or "on or 
before the fifteenth day of June" prevail over any conflicting provisions 
of a collective bargaining agreement entered into on or after the 
effective date of the bill. These dates refer to the deadline for 
providing a teacher notice of intent not to re-employ and for a teacher to 
provide notice of intent not to accept re-employment, respectively. The 
amended language secured by the OEA protects a vast array of bargaining 
rights surrounding continuing contracts/tenure and limited contracts.

 


Jeffrey Shoemaker
Lima City Schools Gifted Intervention Specialist
West Middle School
503 North Cable Road, Lima, OH 45805
Telephone:419-996-3279
Fax:419-996-3151








From:   "June R. Allred-Smith" <jasmith at mail.gsn.k12.oh.us>
To:     <Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu>
Date:   01/23/2013 02:08 PM
Subject:        [Ohiogift] HB 555 and Gifted
Sent by:        
ohiogift-bounces+jshoemaker=limacityschools.org at lists.service.ohio-state.edu



Is anyone familiar with the provison in HB 555 which permits districts to 
give "additional weight" to the test score of an accelerated student, as 
long as the score is proficient or higher?

My questions are:  What exactly does additonal weight mean (the weight 
given for the next score level)? Must the student be identified as gifted, 
or one who has only qualified for acceleration?  What credit would the 
district receive if an accelerated student scores at the advanced level?

Thanks for any light you can shed!


June Allred-Smith
Ross Pike ESC
475 Western Ave., Suite E
Chillicothe, OH  45601
Phone: 740/702-3120
Fax:  740/702-3123
_______________________________________________
Ohiogift mailing list
Ohiogift at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/ohiogift



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message may contain confidential information, 
including, but not limited to, student personally identifiable 
information. Such information is intended only for the use of the 
individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, 
you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, printing, 
distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of 
the information contained herein is strictly prohibited. If you receive 
this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify me by telephone to 
arrange for the return of the original document to me. Please also delete 
the message from your computer. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20130124/84e5def8/attachment.html>