Teacher Quality Legislative Updates 2007

1. SAI Annual Conference 2007 Matt Carver, J.D., Director of Legal Services tel - 515.267.1115 fax - 515.267.1066

2. Agenda • Legislative Update • U.S. Supreme Court Cases • Iowa Case

3. Legislative Update • Teacher Quality - SF 277 (cont.) • Teacher Quality Committee • RequiresTeacher Quality Committee with EQUAL NUMBER of teachers and administrators • Teachers’ union APPOINTS teacher(s) • School board APPOINTS administrator(s) • School board may delegate appointment powerto a committee with significant stakeholder involvement (such as a CSIP committee, professional development, or curriculum committee.)

4. Legislative Update • Teacher Quality - SF 277 (cont.) • Teacher Quality Committee (cont.) • Teacher Quality Committee MUST: • (1) Monitor the implementation of TQ requirements • (2) Ensure evaluations are conducted in a fair and consistent manner throughout the school district. • Develop model evidence for teaching standards & criteria (MINIMIZE PAPERWORK IN PORTFOLIO) • Determine which evidence meets multiple standards & criteria • Determine what standards & criteriaONLYrequire observation.

5. Legislative Update • Teacher Quality - SF 277 (cont.) • Teacher Quality Committee (cont.) • Teacher Quality Committee must: • (3) Determine, the use of state PD funds, following Iowa PD model • (4) Ensure that PD meets school district, attendance center, and individual PD plans • (5) Ensure the agreement negotiated pursuant to Chapter 20determinesteacher compensation for Teacher QualityCommittee work responsibilities required beyond the normal work day

6. Legislative Update • Teacher Quality - SF 277 • Professional Development Days • Strikes requirement for one day of professional development outside the contract, but sets a goal for such use • Requires district level PD plans • Requires attendance center PD plans • Not required to be distinct from district PD plans • Requires the individual plans to EXCEED the attendance center plans • Requires that TEACHER EVALUATIONS include implementation of the individual PD plan, SUBJECT TO FUNDING

7. Legislative Update • Teacher Quality - SF 277 (cont.) • Professional Development Days (cont.) • Requires balanced use of funds between school district, attendance center and individual professional development • Requires districts to report to the DE how PD funds were allocated and used to CREATE NEWPD opportunities • If committee is unable to come to agreement on the use of PD funds, they will be rolled over to the next year

8. Legislative Update • Teacher Quality - SF 277 (cont.) • Administrator Licensure Standards - • State board of education is required to adopt rules establishing: • Knowledge and skill criteria • Mentoring and induction (requires districts to have new administrator M & I plans) • Standards based evaluation processes, and • Professional development plans

9. Legislative Update • Teacher Quality - SF 277 (cont.) • Administrator Licensure Standards - • SAI and member involvement: • (1) SAI offers a new administrator mentoring and induction program • (2) Iowa superintendents and principals developed the statewide standards and criteria over the last two years • (3) Sample principal and superintendent evaluation instruments are on SAI website

10. Legislative Update • Teacher Quality - SF 277 (cont.) • Counselors, Nurses and Librarians - • MAY BE SHARED or PART-TIME • Requires districts to have a qualified licensed guidance counselor and work toward a goal of one counselor for every 350 students. • Requires districts to have a school nurse and to work toward a goal of one nurse for every 750 students • Establishes a two-year waiver process for both. • Continues teacher-librarian requirement and allows waiver extension through this school year

11. Legislative Update • Teacher Quality - SF 277 (cont.) • Background Checks - • Requires districts to request a Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) to conduct a background investigation of a TEACHER APPLICANT BEFORE HIRING, other than one holding an INITIAL licenseissued by the BoEE • (e.g., teachers from outside the state require background check) • Alternatively, districts may use a background check vendor certified by the National Association of Professional Background Check Screeners (NAPBCS)

12. Legislative Update • Teacher Quality - SF 277 (cont.) • Intensive Assistance Program - • Iowa Code §284.1(6) "Intensive assistance" means the provision of organizational support and technical assistance to teachers, other than beginning teachers, for the remediation of identified teaching and classroom management concerns for a period not to exceed twelve months • Requires all districts to have an intensive assistance program • Requires the program and its implementation to be subject to negotiation AND grievance procedures • Intensive assistance bargaining should not expand the scope of the intensive assistance program to include an employees’ breech of other expectations of employment, such as tardiness, insubordination, unexcused absence or immoral, unethical or illegal behavior

13. Legislative Update • Teacher Quality - SF 277 (cont.) • Market Factor Pay - • Expanded to include funding to prepare a teacher to obtain a license or endorsement in shortage areas • Requires the Teacher Quality Committee to make recommendations to the school board AND teachers’ union, regarding market factor expenditures. • Requires the district to report to the DEhow funds were spent • Market factor incentivesMAY NOWsupplant salary • Market factor incentives are NOT A MANDATORY SUBJECT OF BARGAINING

14. Legislative Update • Anti-Bullying & Anti-Harassment- SF 61 • Requires school districts to have anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies • Expands the list of protected classes to include sexual orientation, gender identity, physical attributes, physical or mental ability or disability, ancestry, political party preference, socioeconomic status or familial status. • Pretty much covers bullying and harassment of students for any reason

15. Legislative Update • Anti-Bullying & Anti-Harassment- SF 61 • Districts SHALLintegrate their anti-bullying policy into their comprehensive school improvement plan (CSIP) • Districts are to collect bullying and harassment data and REPORT it on the spring Basic Educational Data Survey (BEDS) report • Training is not requiredif funds are not available, BUT it is STRONGLY ENCOURAGED

16. Legislative Update • Anti-Bullying & Anti-Harassment- SF 61 • Tues., Aug. 21, from 1 - 3 p.m. the DE will hold a training session conducted over the ICN regarding the new reporting requirement in the Anti-bullying/Anti-harassment Law. • Training will cover what incidents to report and how to characterize those incidents • (There will be a later training session on the spring BEDS that will address how the data is to be inputted into the system.)

17. Legislative Update • Sexual Orientation as a Protected Class - SF 427 • Adds “sexual orientation” to the list of protected classes in the Iowa Civil Rights Code. • Ensure that policies are updated and that individuals are not discriminated against due to a protected classification.

18. Legislative Update • Lead Tests - HF 158 • Requires children to undergo blood lead tests by age six, before enrolling in school. • Children who have not been tested by the start of the school year can be provisionally enrolled. • There is a religious exemption • The Iowa Department of Public Health (DPH) can waive the lead test requirement if it’s determined the child is of low risk to have elevated blood lead levels • Requires school districts to notify parents of the lead test requirement at least 90 days prior to the start of school • Requires school districts to report to the DPH that each child has either been tested or received a waiver within 60 days of the start of school • DE strongly discourages districts from removing untested students • Was effective July 1, 2007, however rules have not been adopted • Consider handling at kindergarten round-up for future years • NURSING & MEDICAID ICN ON AUGUST 15 (contact Charlotte Burt at DE)

19. Legislative Update • Dental Screening - HF 906 • Requires children to undergo dental screening by six years of age, before enrolling in schoolAND also in the year preceding high school • Children who have not been screened can only be provisionally enrolled • There are provisions for religious exemption • DPH can establish criteria can establish criteria to waive screening requirements • Requires school districts to notify parents of the dental screening requirement at least 90 days prior to the start of school • Requires school districts to report to the DPH that each child has either been screened or received a waiver within 60 days of the start of school • DE strongly discourages districts from removing unscreened students • Will be effective beginning July 1, 2008 • Consider handling at kindergarten round-up for future years

20. Legislative Update • School Budgets and SBRC - HF 317 • Districts that exceeds their authorized budget or carries a NEGATIVE unspent balancefor two or more consecutive years • School budget review committee (SBRC)may request that the DE send an accreditation team to perform an on-site fiscal review

21. Legislative Update • Education Budget Bill - SF 588 • Adds an obligation of EMPLOYEES TO REPORT TEACHER ASSIGNMENTS IN UNLICENSED AREAS to school official responsible for teaching assignments • If the school official fails to make an adjustment, then the employee shall report to the BoEE • If the BoEE executive director verifies that a licensed teacher is assigned instructional duties for which the teacher does not hold the appropriate license or endorsement, either by grade level OR subject area, the director may initiate a complaint against the teacher AND the administrator responsible for the inappropriate assignment of instructional duties

22. Legislative Update • Education Budget Bill - SF 588 • Requires school districts to amend their student conduct policies to include the behaviors of students, employees and visitors and promote responsible behaviors from all. The policy should: • (1) provide students with the opportunity to exercise self-discipline and practice cooperative classroom behavior; • (2) specify the responsibility of students, parents and licensed staff in creating an atmosphere of respect, safety and belonging, and; • (3) set forth the consequences of unacceptable behavior. • The policy must be published in the student handbook • If this language did not make your handbook, districts will need to use other means to get it to students at the beginning of this school year

23. United States Supreme Court Cases • Morse v. Frederick, 127 S.Ct. 2618 (2007). • “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case - Juneau, Alaska • Facts - High school student brought action against principal and school board, alleging that his First Amendment rights had been violated by ten day suspension for waving banner at off-campus, school-approved, activity. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found for student and stated that the principal could be held personally liable.

24. United States Supreme Court Cases • Morse v. Frederick, 127 S.Ct. 2618 (2007). • “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case - Juneau, Alaska

25. United States Supreme Court Cases • Morse v. Frederick, 127 S.Ct. 2618 (2007). • Holding - • (1) “The special characteristics of the school environment, and the governmental interest in stopping student drug abuse . . . allow schools to restrict student expression that they reasonably regard as promoting illegal drug abuse.” • NOTE - Due to fact that court found for principal on constitutional issue, it did not need to decide the liability issue. However, both majority AND dissent noted that administrator would have been protected by qualified immunity

26. United States Supreme Court Cases • Morse v. Frederick, 127 S.Ct. 2618 (2007). • SPEECH NOT TREATED AS OFF CAMPUS • (a) event occurred during normal school hours, • (b) it was sanctioned by principal “as an approved social event or class trip,” • (c) school district's policies expressly provided that pupils in “approved social events and class trips are subject to district rules for student conduct,” • (d) teachers and administrators were interspersed among students and charged with supervising them, and, • (e) high school band and cheerleaders performed

27. United States Supreme Court Cases • Morse v. Frederick, 127 S.Ct. 2618 (2007). • Key factors: • (1) Students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at schoolhouse gate. • Fraser (case where student gave lewd, sexually explicit speech at school assembly) established that Tinker’s mode of analysis is NOT ABSOLUTE, since the Fraser Court did not conduct the “substantial disruption” analysis. • THIS CASE MOVES FARTHER AWAY FROM TINKER • (2) Schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use.

28. United States Supreme Court Cases • Morse v. Frederick, 127 S.Ct. 2618 (2007). • Court does not greatly extend powers of administrators to limit student speech! • “Petitioners urge us to adopt the broader rule that Frederick's speech is proscribable because it is plainly “offensive” as that term is used in Fraser. We think this stretches Fraser too far; that case should not be read to encompass any speech that could fit under some definition of “offensive.” After all, much political and religious speech might be perceived as offensive to some.” • The concern here IS NOT that Frederick's speech was OFFENSIVE, but that it was reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.

29. United States Supreme Court Cases • Morse v. Frederick, 127 S.Ct. 2618 (2007). • Thomas’s Concurrence: • (1) Thomas would overrule Tinker. • (2) Thomas reviews the history of public education, and concludes that the First Amendment does not protect student speech in public schools

30. United States Supreme Court Cases • Morse v. Frederick, 127 S.Ct. 2618 (2007). • Alito concurrence, joined by Kennedy: • (1) State that the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner could reasonably be interpreted as advocating illegal drug use, and that schools may suppress such advocacy of illegal activity. • (2) Joined majority opinion only with the understanding: • (a) It provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue • (b) The Court’s opinion does not permit public school officials to censor any student speech that interferes with a school’s “educational mission”

31. United States Supreme Court Cases • Morse v. Frederick, 127 S.Ct. 2618 (2007). • Breyer’s concurrence/dissent: • (1) Justice Breyer would have ruled that Principal Morse had qualified immunity and would not have reached the Constitutional Free Speech issue. • (2) “One concern is that, while the holding is theoretically limited to speech promoting the use of illegal drugs, it could in fact authorize further viewpoint-based restrictions. Illegal drugs, after all, are not the only illegal substances. What about encouraging the underage consumption of alcohol?”

32. United States Supreme Court Cases • Morse v. Frederick, 127 S.Ct. 2618 (2007). • Stevens dissent, joined by Souter and Ginsburg: • (1) Agree that principal had qualified immunity and should not be held liable for pulling down Frederick’s sign. • (2) They would hold, however: “that the school’s interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech ‘reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use,’ cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an AMBIGUOUS STATEMENT to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs.”

33. United States Supreme Court Cases • Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al., 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007). • Facts - Parents brought action against Seattle and Jefferson County, Kentucky (Louisville) school districts challenging, under Equal Protection Clause, student assignment plan that relied on racial classifications to allocate slots in Seattle high schools and Louisville Elementary Schools

34. United States Supreme Court Cases • Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al., 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007). • Seattle Facts: • (1) Seattle schools were never segregated by law nor subject to court-ordered desegregation • (2) Seattle District No. 1 has ten high schools. • (3) Approximately 41 percent of enrolled students are “white”; the remaining 59 percent, comprising all other racial groups, are classified as “nonwhite” • (4) Oversubscribed schools that have “white” and “nonwhite”racial balance more than 10 percentage points of the district's overall white/nonwhite percentages are called “integration positive,” and district uses race classification to bring schools back into racial balance

35. United States Supreme Court Cases • Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al., 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007). • Louisville (Jefferson County Public Schools) Facts : • (1) In 1973 a federal court found that Jefferson County had maintained a segregated school system, and in 1975 the District Court entered a desegregation decree • (2) Jefferson County operated under this decree until 2000, when the District Court found that the district had achieved unitary status • (3) After the decree had been dissolved, the district VOLUNTARILY adopted the student assignment plan • (4) Approximately 34 percent of the district's 97,000 students are black; most of the remaining 66 percent are white, GROUPS ARE CLASSIFIED AS “BLACK” and “OTHER” • (5) Plan required all nonmagnet schools to maintain a minimum black enrollment of 15 percent, and a maximum black enrollment of 50 percent

36. United States Supreme Court Cases • Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al., 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007). • Supreme Court held: • (1) The school districts have not carried their heavy burden of showing that the interest they seek to achieve (RACIAL DIVERSITY) justifies the extreme means they have chosen - discriminating among individual students based on race by relying upon racial classifications in making school assignments.

37. United States Supreme Court Cases • Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al., 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007). • Key factors: • Standard - Governmental distributions of burdens or benefits based on individual racial classifications are reviewed under STRICT SCRUTINY. • School districts must demonstrate that their use of such classifications is “narrowly tailored” to achieve a “compelling” government interest.

38. United States Supreme Court Cases • Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al., 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007). • Key factors: • Supreme Court has recognized TWO INTERESTS that qualify as compelling reasons to use race classifications in school: • (1) The first is the compelling interest of remedying the effects of past intentional discrimination • (2) The second government interest we have recognized as compelling for purposes of strict scrutiny is the interest in diversity in higher education • Concerning the second interest, the Supreme Court found in Grutter (The Michigan Law School case) that the diversity interest was not focused on race alone but encompassed “all factors that may contribute to student body diversity.”

39. United States Supreme Court Cases • Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al., 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007). • Key factors: • Michigan Law School - “[The law school's] policy makes clear there are many possible bases for diversity admissions, and provides examples of admittees who have lived or traveled widely abroad, are fluent in several languages, have overcome personal adversity and family hardship, have exceptional records of extensive community service, and have had successful careers in other fields.”

40. United States Supreme Court Cases • Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al., 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007). • Key factors: • In the present cases, by contrast, race is not considered as part of a broader effort to achieve “exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints,” race, for some students, is determinative standing alone. The districts argue that other factors, such as student preferences, affect assignment decisions under their plans, but under each plan when race comes into play, it is decisive by itself. It is not simply one factor weighed with others in reaching a decision, as in Grutter; it is the factor. . . . the plans here “do not provide for a meaningful individualized review of applicants” but instead rely on racial classifications in a “nonindividualized, mechanical” way.

41. United States Supreme Court Cases • Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 127 S.Ct. 1994 (2007). • Facts - Regarding son's individualized education program (IEP) as deficient, the Winkelmans unsuccessfully appealed through Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA's) administrative review process. Proceeding without counsel, they then filed a federal-court complaint on their own behalf and on Jacob's behalf. The District Court granted the school district judgment on the pleadings. The Sixth Circuit entered an order dismissing the Winkelmans' subsequent appeal unless they obtained an attorney, citing Circuit precedent holding that because the right to a free appropriate public education belongs only to the child, and IDEA does not abrogate the common-law rule prohibiting nonlawyer parents from representing minor children, IDEA does not allow nonlawyer parents to proceed pro se in federal court.

42. United States Supreme Court Cases • Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 127 S.Ct. 1994 (2007). • Supreme Court held: • (1) IDEA grants parents independent, enforceable rights, which are not limited to procedural and reimbursement-related matters but encompass the entitlement to a free appropriate public education for their child. • (2) Parents may proceed “pro se.”(without separate legal counsel)

43. United States Supreme Court Cases • Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 127 S.Ct. 1994 (2007). • Key factors: • IDEA grants parents independent, enforceable rights, which encompass the entitlement to a free appropriate public education for the parents' child and which are not limited to certain procedural and reimbursement-related matters. • IDEA's goals include “ensur[ing] . . . “that the rights of children with disabilities AND parents of such children are protected” • Many of IDEA’s terms “mandate or otherwise describe parental involvement.” For instance, parentsplay a “significant role” in the development of the child’s IEP

44. Iowa Case • Bd. of Dir. Of Ames Community School Dist. v. Cullinan, 732 N.W.2d 887 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007). • Facts: • On July 2, 2002, the Assistant Superintendent directed Cullinan to prepare a remediation plan with specific elements, including student-athlete and parent surveys, student-athlete interviews, and provisions for direct interaction with student-athletes. The memo set forth expectations for each element of the plan, including the following: “It is critical that in the future, when handling or dealing with acute individual student-athlete corrections, that corrections must be ... [d]one in the presence of an assistant coach or ... the student's counselor or parent....” The directive ended with a warning that “any future similar incidents will, no doubt, lead to serious disciplinary actions up to and including possible termination from duties.”

45. Iowa Case • Bd. of Dir. Of Ames Community School Dist. v. Cullinan, 732 N.W.2d 887 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007). • Facts: • During 2003-2004 basketball season, Cullinan individually met with a star player after game, to discuss his displeasure with the player’s decision to dribble the ball up court during the game • In the spring of 2004, Ames School Board terminated basketball coach for his failure to (1) effectively lead the boys' basketball program and (2) adequately remediate leadership deficiencies. • Cullinan appealed the decision and won in district court • The school board then appealed

46. Iowa Case • Bd. of Dir. Of Ames Community School Dist. v. Cullinan, 732 N.W.2d 887 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007). • Holding: • (1) there was insufficient evidence to support school board's finding that meeting between coach and player was “acute individual correction,” and • (2) there was insufficient evidence to support school board's finding that coach's coaching style was instilling negative atmosphere, leading to low team morale, and creating dissension in program.

47. Iowa Case • Bd. of Dir. Of Ames Community School Dist. v. Cullinan, 732 N.W.2d 887 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007). • Key factors: • Based on Coach’s testimony, the December 16 meeting did not rise to the level of an acute individual correction • District’sfindings of fact did not back up that there was an "acute individual correction," • The player involved, DID NOT TESTIFY and DIRECTLY REFUTE COACH • The board did not make specific credibility determinations regarding its sources and statements

48. Iowa Case • Bd. of Dir. Of Ames Community School Dist. v. Cullinan, 732 N.W.2d 887 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007). • Key factors: • The Board seems to have found that the coach delivered his correction of the player in an angry and inappropriate manner “BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES DICTATED.” • The court was troubled that the Board's decision was based largely on ten wholly anonymous player surveys.

49. Iowa Case • Bd. of Dir. Of Ames Community School Dist. v. Cullinan, 732 N.W.2d 887 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007). • Key factors: • In the context of teacher fault a “just cause” is one which directly or indirectly significantly and adversely affects what must be the ultimate goal of every school system: high quality education for the district's students. • It relates to job performance including leadership and role model effectiveness. It must include the concept that a school district is not married to mediocrity but may dismiss personnel who are neither performing high quality work nor improving in performance. • Evidence of past leadership deficiencies cannot alone serve as a basis for termination. However, such evidence is relevant to the question of whether past deficiencies have been remediated.(whether they demonstrate a pattern of behavior).

50. Iowa Case • Bd. of Dir. Of Ames Community School Dist. v. Cullinan, 732 N.W.2d 887 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007). • Key factors: • The Board's just cause determination was based on two findings. First, the Board found the December 16 meeting with Thompson was either (1) an acute individual correction that required the presence of another adult, or (2) intimidating and thus in violation of earlier warnings to modify Cullinan's coaching behavior. Second, the Board found, based on post-incident surveys and interviews, that Cullinan was no longer providing a motivating, supportive atmosphere, and that his handling of the boys basketball program resulted in low team morale and was the primary cause of dissension in the program. WE AGREE WITH THE BOARD THAT THE FOREGOING FINDINGS, IF SHOWN, WOULD CONSTITUTE FAILURE TO EFFECTIVELY LEAD THE BOYS BASKETBALL PROGRAM AND FAILURE TO REMEDIATE PAST LEADERSHIP DEFICIENCIES, WHICH IN TURN WOULD PROVIDE JUST CAUSE FOR TERMINATION OF CULLINAN'S COACHING CONTRACT.