SAI Annual Conference 2013

1. SAI Annual Conference 2013 Matt Carver, J.D., Legal Services Director tel - 515.267.1115 fax - 515.267.1066

2. Education Reform – HF 215 (Divisions I & II) • In future years, the terminology “Allowable Growth” is changed to “Supplemental State Aid”– the amount state cost per pupil and district cost per pupil will increase from one budget year to the next. • The term was changed because supplemental state aid is entirely state funding, with no property tax impact. • FY 2014 – 2% increase ($120 per student), plus 2% one-time “School District Funding Supplement” ($120 per student) • FY 2015 – 4% increase ($245 per student)

3. Education Reform – HF 215 (Divisions I & II) • “Categorical State Percent of Growth”– used to calculate the supplemental state aid increase for teacher salary supplement, the professional supplement, and the early intervention supplement. • FY 2014 – 2% increase • FY 2015 – 4% increase • Finally, the additional levy amount freezes at 12.5% (FY 2013 level)

4. Education Reform – HF 215 (Divisions III) • Iowa Learning Online (ILO) • The DE received $1.5 million for each FY14, FY15, and FY16 to expand ILO. • Districts and accredited nonpublic schools will have access to an increased curriculum of Iowa Core-aligned online courses. • ILO will be able to expand offerings to include all “offer and teach” curriculum requirements for grades 9-12.

5. Education Reform – HF 215 (Divisions IV) • Training and Employment of Teachers • The Teach Iowa online job posting system launched this month. • All public school districts, charter schools, and AEAs will be required to post ALL job openings, including certified and classified staff, on the system. Accredited nonpublic may participate. • Districts may still use other forms of advertising or posting as well. • The DE will NOT have regulatory authority in the hiring process.

6. Education Reform – HF 215 (Divisions IV) • Training and Employment of Teachers • Teach Iowa Student Teaching Pilot Project • The pilot project will provide students in the participating teacher preparation program with a one-year student teaching experience.

7. Education Reform – HF 215 (Divisions IV) • Training and Employment of Teachers • Teach Iowa Scholar Program • Criteria for eligibility includes, but is not limited to: • 1) The applicant is in the top 25 percent academically of students exiting a practitioner preparation program • 2) The applicant is preparing to teach in fields including, but not limited to, science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM); English as a second language or special education, or some other hard-to-staff area, as identified by the DE. (the DE will consider regional needs across the state).

8. Education Reform – HF 215 (Divisions IV) • Training and Employment of Teachers • Teach Iowa Scholar Program (cont.) • If selected for a Teach Iowa Scholar Grant, recipients shall receive $4,000 per year, up to five years ($20,000) if employed full-time in an Iowa school district, AEA, charter school, or accredited nonpublic school. • No money is available for the 2013-14 school year!

9. Education Reform – HF 215 (Divisions V) • Student Assessments – • Lays groundwork for new assessment system for public and accredited nonpublic school students. • A task force of education stakeholders will be formed to study the state’s assessment needs. • The task force is to make recommendations by January 1, 2015, with implementation by 2016-17 • The new assessment must align to the Iowa Core and provide fair measures of progress toward college or career readiness.

10. Education Reform – HF 215 (Division VI) • Council on Educator Development (Evaluations) • This 17 member council is established to study and make recommendations for new statewide teacher and administrator evaluation systems. • The council will review the current evaluation systems, as well as a number of other components, such as: • 1) Iowa Teaching Standards • 2) Iowa Standards for School Administrators

11. Education Reform – HF 215 (Division VI) • Council on Educator Development (Evaluations) • The council’s recommendations shall consider numerous factors, such as: • 1) “fair and balanced” use of student outcome measures • 2) multiple indicators that demonstrate professional practice • 3) student and parent surveys • The council’s findings and recommendations are due NLT January 1, 2016.

12. Education Reform – HF 215 (Division VII) • Iowa Teacher Career and Compensation Matters • Division VII establishes a statewide teacher leadership system. • For the 2013-14 school year, $3.5 million in grant money is appropriated for planning to facilitate a local decision-making process to design a teacher leadership system. • Planning should include administrators, teachers, parents/guardians of students. • The DE’s intent is that all school districts applying for a planning grant will receive money. • DON’T PASS UP THIS OPPORTUNITY!!! Planning money is ONLY available in 2013-14!

13. Education Reform – HF 215 (Division VII) • Iowa Teacher Career and Compensation Matters • Districts will submit their plans to the Commission on Educator Leadership and Compensation for approval. • The state’s future contribution to teacher leadership and compensation includes(estimated at $310 per student): • 2014-15 - $50 million (1/3 of statewide enrollment) • 2015-16 - $100 million (2/3 of statewide enrollment) • 2016-17 - $150 million (entire statewide enrollment) • When the program is fully implemented, the state’s contribution will be $150 million per year, PLUS AN ANNUAL GROWTH FACTOR. • Participation IS OPTIONAL!

14. Education Reform – HF 215 (Division VII) • Iowa Teacher Career and Compensation Matters • Teacher Leadership funding may be used: • 1) to raise the minimum salary in a district to $33,500 • 2) to fund the salary supplements for teachers in leadership roles • 3) to cover costs for time teachers in leadership roles are not providing direct instruction in the classroom • 4) to cover the costs when teachers are out of the classroom to observe or co-teach with another teacher • 5) to provide professional development related to the leadership pathways, and, • 6) to cover other costs associated with the approved teacher leadership and compensation plan.

15. Education Reform – HF 215 (Division VII) • Iowa Teacher Career and Compensation Matters • Three options are available for developing a teacher leadership and compensation plan: • Option 1 – Iowa Teacher Career Paths, Leadership Roles, and Compensation Framework (Iowa Code § 284.15) • This option: • 1) creates model, mentor, and lead teacher roles • 2) establishes requirements for percentage of teachers in each role, the amount of the salary supplement for teachersin each role, and the percentage of time teachers will spend on additional leadership duties.

16. Education Reform – HF 215 (Division VII) • Iowa Teacher Career and Compensation Matters • Option 2 – Instructional Coach Model (Iowa Code § 284.16) • 1) The Instructional Coach Model includes three leadership pathways: model teacher, instructional coach, and curriculum and professional development leader. • 2) Each pathway has detailed responsibilities, as well as salary supplement ranges and additional contract days.

17. Education Reform – HF 215 (Division VII) • Iowa Teacher Career and Compensation Matters • Option 3 – Comparable Plan Model (Iowa Code § 284.17) • This plan includes five “must have” components: • 1) A minimum salary of $33,500 for all full-time teachers • 2) Increased support for new teachers, such as additional coaching, mentoring, and opportunities for observing excellent instructional practice

18. Education Reform – HF 215 (Division VII) • Iowa Teacher Career and Compensation Matters • Option 3 – Comparable Plan Model (Iowa Code § 284.17) • 3) Differentiated, multiple teacher leadership roles beyond the initial and career teacher levels, in which a goal of AT LEAST 25 percent of the teacher workforce serves with additional days and compensation commensurate with the role • 4) A rigorous selection process for placement and retention in leadership roles • 5) A professional development system facilitated by teachers and administrators and aligned with the Iowa Professional Development Model.

19. Education Reform – HF 215 (Division VII) • Attendance Center Performance Rankings • The DE will submit findings and a report by July 1, 2014, to develop criteria and a process to report the performance of each school in Iowa. • Criteria shall include, but not be limited to: student academic growth, parent involvement, student attendance, employee turnover, and community activities and involvement. • There will be six categories: 1) exceptional, 2) high performing, 3) commendable, 4) acceptable, 5) needs improvement, and 6) priority. • The DE will post performance rankings on its website.

20. Education Reform – HF 215 (Division VIII) • Competency-Based Education Task Force • Up to ten districts will annually receive grants from the DE to develop, implement, and evaluate competency based pilot and demonstration projects • The Competency-Based Education Task Force will: • 1) draft a strategic plan, and, • 2) a proposed timeline for statewide implementation of competency-based learning • for consideration by the Legislature.

21. Education Reform – HF 215 (Division XIV) • School District Reporting Requirement Task Force • A task force is established to review school district reporting requirements. • The Director of the DE will appoint five members to serve on this task force. • The task force will compile its written justifications in a report to the State Board of Education and the Legislature by December 2, 2013.

22. Education Budget Bill – HF 604 • Successful Progression for Early Readers • Appropriates $8 million to enact section 279.68(2) regarding early literacy programs. Funds are for schools to establish and implement the following components: • 1) Provision of intensive instructional services to students identified as having a substantial deficiency in reading. • 2) Regular reporting to parents of the academic progress of students with substantial deficiencies. • 3) Support for parents in planning and implementing an in-home parent-guided reading program through a parent-school contract.

23. Education Budget Bill – HF 604 • Successful Progression for Early Readers • 4) A reading enhancement and acceleration enhancement initiative. • 5) Offer an intensive summer literacy program each summer, beginning in 2017. • 6) Report to the DE on specific reading interventions and supports implemented in schools.

24. Compulsory Attendance Age – HF 351 • Compulsory attendance age lowered to 4 year olds • This provision establishes that a child who is at least 4 years old by September 15AND is enrolled in in statewide voluntary preschoolis of compulsory attendance age. • However. . . • a parent or guardian may make a written request to remove the student from school and the child will no longer be considered of compulsory attendance age.

25. Vision Screening – SF 419 • The parent/guardian shall ensure vision screening occurs prior to a child’s enrollment in kindergarten and again prior to enrollment in third grade. • The vision screening may be performed by a variety of medical professionals, OR • by the student’s parent/guardian by way of an online examination. • Vision screening methods shall be approved by the DE.

26. Vision Screening – SF 419 • However. . . • a student shall not be denied enrollment due to the lack of a vision screening, AND, • a family may opt out due to genuine and sincere religious beliefs

27. Vision Screening – SF 419 • School’s responsibility: • 1) Provide parents/guardians with vision screening referral resources. • 2) Compile evidence of vision screenings to be forwarded to the DE. • Starting NEXT YEAR (2014-15!!!)

28. Suicide Prevention and Trauma Care– SF 446 • Requires the DE, DHS, and the Department of Public Health to develop training recommendations for suicide prevention and awareness and trauma informed care for licensed school personnel by December 15, 2013.

29. School Employee Background Checks – SF 452 • Creates new code section 279.69 (background checks) • Requires ALL district employees, whether classified, certified, part-time, substitute, or contracted, to undergo review of the three main abuse registries, just as you were required to do for bus drivers last year. • Districts may perform additional checks, but must review, at a minimum the sex offender, adult dependent abuse, and child abuse registries, as well as online court information, for each employee.

30. School Employee Background Checks – SF 452 • Check is required every five years, and districts must maintain records. • Districts are required to complete checks for all employees by July 1, 2014. • If an applicant or employee is on any of the registries, this constitutes grounds for immediate suspension, and subsequent termination. • Termination hearings conducted pursuant to this section are limited to whether the employee was incorrectly listed on the registry.

31. Construction Contract Terms – HF 211 • Makes provisions of an in-state construction contract void and unenforceable if it: • 1) Makes the in-state construction contract subject to the laws of another state. • 2) Requires any litigation, mediation, arbitration, or other dispute resolution proceeding arising from the contract to be conducted in another state.

32. Operational Sharing Incentives– HF 472 & SF 452 • Extends supplemental weighting for shared operational functions another five years (2013-2014 to 2018-2019). • Shared operational functions that originally qualified: • 1) Superintendent Management • 2) Business Management • 3) Human Resources Management • 4) Transportation Management • 5) Operations and Maintenance Management

33. Operational Sharing Incentives– HF 472 & SF 452 • New legislation includes all of the previous functions, as well as: • 1) Curriculum Director • 2) School Administration Manager (SAM) • 3) Social Worker • 4) School Nurse • 5) School Counselor • 6) School Librarian • Funds MAY NOT be used to fund new positions.

34. Operational Sharing Incentives– HF 472 & SF 452 • New legislation CONTINUES to require: • 1) Demonstration of cost savings • 2) Demonstration of increased student opportunities • The DE will use data collections already in place to minimize burden on districts. • Districts will request supplemental weighting through Fall BEDS submission and begin receiving funds next year.

35. Operational Sharing Incentives– HF 472 & SF 452 • New legislation DOES NOT include: • 1) 20 percent phase out each year • 2) Requirement for sharing partners to be contiguous

36. Operational Sharing Incentives– HF 472 & SF 452 • Supplemental weighting of .02 times the certified enrollment. • School Districts: • Minimum – 10 additional students • Maximum – 40 additional students • AEAs: • Minimum of $50,000 • Maximum of $200,000

37. Iowa Cases • LeeAnn Mitchell, on behalf of D.E. v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, (Iowa 2012). • Facts: • D.E., a ninth grade special education student, was capable of performing daily skills except money management. M.F., a nineteen-year-old twelfth grade special education student. A teacher observed M.F. and D.E. spending time together and witnessed them engaging in physical contact, including kissing. The teacher was concerned that the students may engage in sexual contact if left unsupervised. • D.E. and a friend, S.K., skipped sixth period one day, and met up with M.F. • Kennedy High School had an automated system that notified parents/guardians on the evening when a student was absent. The school’s policy did not require teachers to alert parents of a student’s absence. However, the teachers had done this frequently in the past.

38. Iowa Cases • LeeAnn Mitchell, on behalf of D.E. v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, (Iowa 2012). (cont.) • Facts: • After 4 p.m., D.E. and M.F. went into the garage at another friend’s house, where M.F. sexually assaulted D.E. • At approximately 4 p.m., Mitchell, D.E.’s parent, learned that D.E. was missing, and Mitchell drove around looking for her. Mitchell eventually found D.E., but she did not learn about the sexual assault until months later.

39. Iowa Cases • LeeAnn Mitchell, on behalf of D.E. v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, (Iowa 2012). (cont.) • Verdict: • The jury returned a verdict for D.E., finding $500,000 in damages and apportioning seventy percent fault to Kennedy and thirty percent to D.E.

40. Iowa Cases • LeeAnn Mitchell, on behalf of D.E. v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, (Iowa 2012). (cont.) • Iowa Supreme Court held: • 1) C.R. Kennedy failed to preserve its duty argument for appellate review. • 2) Kennedy did not preserve its factual causation argument below and the Supreme Court declined to address its merits • 3) The court concluded the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings that the school’s negligence increased the risk of D.E.’s harm.

41. Iowa Cases • LeeAnn Mitchell, on behalf of D.E. v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, (Iowa 2012). (cont.) • Lessons Learned: • 1) Additional attention must be given to the supervision of younger students or students with disabilities which affect their ability to perform daily tasks or to care for him or herself • 2) A higher duty of care may be expected if staff members observe behavior at school which give reason for heightened concern (e.g., students kissing at school) • 3) If you utilize an automated system for attendance, ensure that it informs parents/guardians of an absence as soon as possible

42. Iowa Cases • LeeAnn Mitchell, on behalf of D.E. v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, (Iowa 2012). (cont.) • Lessons Learned: • 4) Consider multiple forms of parental notification if practicable (e.g., text, email, telephone) • 5) Ensure that staff members take attendance at the beginning of each class and quickly input information into your system • 6) Schools may face liability for actions which occur after school, but originated at school • 7) Legal technicalities sometimes make a difference during court decisions

43. S.J.W. v. Lee’s Summit R-7 Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2012) • Facts: The Lee's Summit R-7 School District ("the School District") issued 180-day suspensions to twin brothers Steven and Sean Wilson (together, "the Wilsons") on January 11, 2012 for disruption caused by a website the Wilsons created. The Wilsons filed suit against the School District on March 6, 2012, alleging, along with other claims, that the School District violated their rights to free speech. The Wilsons also filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to lift their suspensions. On March 23, 2012, the District Court entered an Order granting the Wilsons' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

44. S.J.W. v. Lee’s Summit R-7 Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2012) • Facts: Between Tuesday, December 13 and Friday, December 16, 2011, the Wilsons added posts to the NorthPress blog. The Wilsons' posts contained a variety of offensive and racist comments as well as sexually explicit and degrading comments about particular female classmates, whom they identified by name.The racist posts discussed fights at Lee's Summit North and mocked black students. A third student added another racist post. • The parties dispute the extent to which the Wilsons used Lee's Summit North computers to create, maintain, or access NorthPress. On Tuesday, December 13, one of the Wilsons used a school computer to upload files needed to create NorthPress. The School District's computer records also show a person or people accessed NorthPress using Lee's Summit North computers on Wednesday, December 14 and Thursday, December 15, but the records do not show who accessed the site. The School District cannot prove whether those users added content to the site or merely viewed it.

45. S.J.W. v. Lee’s Summit R-7 Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2012) • The School District claimed the public discovery of NorthPress caused substantial disruption on December 16, 2011. The School District's computer records from December 16 show numerous Lee's Summit North computers were used to access or to attempt to access NorthPress. Lee's Summit North teachers testified they experienced difficulty managing their classes because students were distracted and in some cases upset by NorthPress; at least two teachers described December 16 as one of the most or the most disrupted day of their teaching careers. Lee's Summit North administrators testified that local media arrived on campus and that parents contacted the school with concerns about safety, bullying, and discrimination, both on December 16 and for some time afterwards. Additionally, Lee's Summit North administrators expressed concern that the Wilsons' early return to Lee's Summit North would cause further disruption and might endanger the Wilsons.

46. S.J.W. v. Lee’s Summit R-7 Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2012) • 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Held: • We expect Tinker will apply here becausethe Wilsons' speech was, in the District Court's words, "targeted at" Lee's Summit North. • The parties dispute the extent to which the Wilsons' speech was "off-campus," but the location from which the Wilsons spoke may be less important than the District Court's finding that the posts were directed at Lee's Summit North. • Just like the online speech in Kowalski and Doninger, the NorthPressposts "could reasonably be expected to reach the school or impact the environment." Kowalski, 652 F.3d at 573. Furthermore, unlike in J.S., the District Court found that the NorthPresspostings "caused considerable disturbance and disruption on Friday, the 16th."

47. Child Evangelism Fellowship of Minnesota v. Minneapolis Special School District No. 1, 690 F.3d 996(8th Cir. 2012) • Facts: • The non-profit organization conducted weekly “good news clubs” where kids were taught Christian Biblical principles, moral values, and similar character qualities during an after-school program. • CEF was a school partner for several years until a new district employee removed CEF from the after-school program, due to concerns of “prayer and proselytizing.”CEF was still able to meet at the school, but children were not able to receive school snacks or transportation, as children in approved, after-school programs received. • The District Court denied CEF’s request for a preliminary injunction and CEF appealed.

48. Child Evangelism Fellowship of Minnesota v. Minneapolis Special School District No. 1, 690 F.3d 996(8th Cir. 2012) • The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held: • 1) The loss of attendance from 47 students to 5 students was enough to establish irreparable harm. • 2) The District engaged in viewpoint discrimination. • 3) Providing school resources does not automatically make something a school activity.(e.g., the District ensured that disclaimers were used disassociating the District with views or speech of after-school programs) • Bottom-line – the District Court abused its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction.

49. Ulrich v. Pope County, ___ F.3d ___(8th Cir. 2013) • Facts: • Brian Ulrich was subject to a restraining order which provided that he “shall not harass” and “shall have no contact with” his former girlfriend. This included direct or indirect contact. • No distance was specified on the restraining order. • Ulrich attempted to attend the high school graduation of the girlfriend’s daughter, in the high school’s gym. • When Ulrich refused to leave, deputies arrested him.

50. Ulrich v. Pope County, ___ F.3d ___(8th Cir. 2013) • The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held: • 1) It was reasonable for the deputies “to believe that probable cause existed to arrest Ulrich for a violation of the HRO through his intentional presence and conduct at the graduation ceremony.” • 2) The existence of probable cause or arguable probable cause depends on the viewpoint of an objectively reasonable officer, not the viewpoint of the particular arresting officer. A deputy’s statement that “technically” no violation of the restraining order had occurred did not prevent the employee from having immunity.