Transcript School Personnel Law for New, Aspiring, or Curious

Legal Update for Administrators: Recent
Statutes, Court Decisions, and Grievance
Opinions Affecting Public Education
Howard Seufer, Jr. [[email protected]]
RESA 7
Village Square Conference Center
August 3, 2009
The Education Law Group at Bowles
Rice McDavid Graff & Love
Primary Attorneys
Adjunct Attorneys
Greg Bailey - Morgantown
Rick Boothby - Parkersburg
Howard Seufer - Charleston
Rebecca Tinder - Charleston
Bob Bays - Eminent Domain
Rick Brown - Employee Disability
Joe Caltrider – Personal Injury Defense
Pat Clark - Contracts
Mark D’Antoni - Real Estate
Mark Dellinger - Human Rights
Kit Francis - Creditors Rights
Jill Hall - Employee Benefits
Tom Heywood - Government Relations
Bob Kent - Personal Injury Defense
Jeff Matherly - Health Information
Ellen Maxwell-Hoffman - Ethics
Edd McDevitt – Bonds, QZABs & Levies
Marion Ray - Workers Compensation
Lesley Russo – Employee Benefits
Cam Siegrist - Finance
Beth Walker - Wage & Hour
Ken Webb - Construction Litigation
Kim Croyle - Morgantown
Ashley Hardesty - Morgantown
Legal Assistants
Sarah Plantz - Charleston
Dianne Wolfe - Parkersburg
Our Agenda

Some recent legal developments of particular
interest to public school administrators:
Legislation
 Supreme Court Decisions
 W. Va. Supreme Court Decisions
 Grievance Board Decisions
 State Superintendent Interpretations
As time permits, some issues to pay special
attention to in the coming school year


A Word About This Presentation





The specific facts of each situation can make a
difference in the legal principles that apply and the
best course of action to take from a legal standpoint
We are speaking in general terms today and do not
have the time to consider all the factual contexts in
which these legal issues may arise
For that reason, this presentation must not be treated
as legal advice about any specific situation
Also, due to the rapidly changing nature of the law,
information contained in this presentation may
become outdated
No person should act or rely upon the information
contained in this presentation without seeking the
advice of an attorney
Some Words About the Handout




Then first 37 pages of the handout consist of
summaries only
The summaries of legislation, court and
grievance decisions, and interpretations are
ours
Never take important action in reliance upon
a summary
Time prevents us from covering every new
law (and decision) summarized in the
handout
New West Virginia Legislation of
Particular Interest to Public
School Administrators
From the 2009 Regular and First
Special Sessions
Handout, page 1
These Bills Did Not Pass and Are
Not Law





School calendar
Altering the “seven factors” used to compare
candidates for professional vacancies
Relieving county boards of liability for
unfunded PEIA benefits for retirees
School board member pay raise
Removing budget cap on RESA foundation
allowance
Seven Categories of Legislation
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Students
Safe Schools
Personnel
Finance
Business
Public Officials
Retirement
Students
Senate Bill 398
Restrictions on Graduated Driver’s
Licenses
(In Effect July 10, 2009)
Handout, page 2
Senate Bill 498
Early Childhood Education
(In Effect April 11, 2009)
Handout, page 4
Reporting

Before July 1 of each school year after 2012-2013,
each county board must report to DHHR Secretary
and State Superintendent:


documentation showing the extent to which it is maximizing
resources by using existing community-based programs,
including Head Start and child care
Any county that includes in its net enrollment for
state aid children in contracted community-based
programs must also report:

documentation that the county equitably distributes funds
for all children regardless of setting
Quality Rating & Improvement

Requires DHHR Secretary to

establish a plan for phased implementation (starting July
1, 2011) of a statewide quality rating and improvement
system covering






licensed child care centers and facilities
registered family child care homes
other types of child care settings licensed after the system is
implemented
include a financial plan providing for staffing, public
awareness, an internet-based information system,
financial assistance for programs, and assistance for
consumers at or under 200% of the federal poverty level
create a Quality Rating and Improvement System Advisory
Council to advise concerning the plan and ongoing review
Recognizes that stimulus funds may fund some
expenditures
Mandatory Elements of New System

4-star rating system that easily communicates to
consumers



4-level program standards for registered homes and
licensed programs


One star: meets minimum acceptable standards
Four stars: meets the highest standards
Only mandatory level: Level 1 (basic state registration and
licensing requirements)
Accountability measures to assess compliance


Evaluations, observation/assessment tools, annual selfassessments, model program improvement planning to help
in improvement
Rules for the reduction, suspension, or disqualification of
programs from the system
Possible Pilot Programs

Authorizes DHHR Secretary to implement a
quality rating and improvement system as a
pilot project in up to five counties beginning
July 1, 2009 to help





test the rating system
assess the quality of existing providers
estimate financial requirements of the future
statewide system
Inform future policy decision
Ratings of pilot project participants may not
be individually disclosed
Senate Bill 1001
Critical Skills Instruction Support
Programs for Third and Eighth Grade
(In Effect July 1, 2009)
Handout, page 5
“Critical Skills Instructional Support
Programs”

For students in grades 3 and 8 who



are not mastering language arts and math
adequately for success at next grade level, and
are recommended by Student Assistance Team or
classroom teacher
To occur



during the instructional day, and
after the instructional day, and
during the summer
State Board of Education

Enact rules to





Maximize parental involvement in supporting critical
skills development
Ensure employment of qualified personnel under
the existing summer employment laws
Create formula or grant-based distribution of funds
Providing for transportation, healthy foods, and
supervision of participating students
Annually report to LOCEA, Joint Committee on
Government & Finance, Governor
County Boards





Provide suitable facilities, equipment,
services to support the programs
May provide summer programs at central
locations
Cannot charge tuition
Must ensure that SATs are established and
performing needs assessments
If funds are inadequate for full
implementation, may implement in phases,
prioritizing programs for third graders
Students

Summer program may be made a condition of
promotion for a third or eighth grader





who was provided help in the in-school and after-school
programs, and
is recommended by SAT or classroom teacher for
additional help in language arts and/or math to succeed at
next grade level
In spite of program, classroom teacher may
recommend grade level retention
Program is not to affect IEPs
Program does preclude summer programs under
existing laws
House Bill 109
Innovation Zones
(In Effect July 1, 2009)
Handout, page 8
Purpose


Create testing grounds for innovative
education reform programs at the school
level that document educational strategies
that enhance student success and increase
the accountability of the state’s public schools
Do so by providing principals and teachers
with flexibility from the constraints of certain
statutes, policies, rules, and interpretations
Allows Exceptions from County and State
Rules, Policies, and Interpretations, and
from State Statutes


Only within designated zones, and under
approved innovation zone plans
Exceptions cannot be granted to


Any federal law, including NCLB
WV laws on the filling of personnel vacancies and
the assignment, transfer, and reduction in force of
professional and service employees

But if a majority of all the county’s teachers vote to
approve, heightened qualifications may be posted for
teaching vacancies in an innovation zone
Designating Innovation Zones

An innovation zone may consist of





a school
a group of schools
a subdivision or department of a school
a subdivision or department of a group of
schools
Application for designation

State Board rules will govern


Must describe innovations to be instituted
Must estimate affected employees
(Designating Innovation Zones)

Step One: Secret ballot special election by affected
regular employees



Special panel calls meeting, conducts election, certifies
vote
 School’s elected faculty senate officers, a service
personnel representative, three parent members of LSIC
Requires approval by 80% of eligible voters
Step Two: State Board decides whether to
designate, considering at least


Level of commitment by staff, parents, students, county
board, LSIC, and business partners
Potential for applicant to succeed as an innovation zone
Approving Innovation Plans

Minimum plan contents



Description of programs, policies, or initiatives that
the zone intends to implement as an innovative
strategy to improve student learning
An explanation of the needed exceptions to
identified rules, policies, interpretations, and
statutes
Other information required by the State Board of
Education
(Approving Innovation Plans)

Step One: 80% approval in special election
by affected employees


Conducted exactly like the zone designation
election by affected employees
Step Two: Submission to county board and
superintendent

Board and superintendent must report support
and/or concerns in 60 days

Reports go to principal, faculty senate, LSIC
(Approving Innovation Plans)

Step Three: Approval by both the State
Superintendent and State Board

Approve or disapprove


If both approve, requested exemptions from county and
state rules, policies, and interpretations take effect (but
not exemptions from state statutes)
Any disapproval requires statement of reasons. Plan
may be revised and resubmitted, but only after another
80% election by affected employees and another
submission to, and report by, the county superintendent
and board
(Approving Innovation Plans)

Step Four: If the plan requests exemption
from any West Virginia statute, the exemption
must be approved by Act of the Legislature


First the plan must be submitted to LOCEA
LOCEA makes a recommendation to the
Legislature
Additional Provisions

Employee Transfers


“Every reasonable effort” must be made to grant a transfer
request by a regular employee at a school that is proposed
or approved as an innovation zone and whose duties “may
be affected” by a proposed or approved innovation plan
State Board reports



Annually review progress of the development or
implementation of each plan
A zone that hasn’t made adequate progress in developing
or implementing its plan is reviewed again in six months
 State Board may then revoke zone designation or plan
approval
Annually reports to LOCEA on all innovation zones
(Additional Provisions)

Higher Education Institutions



May establish innovation zone schools
State Board to establish process
Students attending the school



will be enrolled in a public school in county of residence
May participate at the public school in extracurricular
and co-curricular activities
Higher Education institution’s school may not be
funded with state or county moneys resulting from
state aid formula
House Bill 3083
Blood Donations by 16-Year-Olds
with Parental Consent
(In Effect June 24, 2009)
Handout, page 14
Safe
Schools
House Bill 2952
Terroristic Threats
(In Effect July 7, 2009)
Handout, page 14
Personnel
Senate Bill 1006
Hiring, Terminating, Transferring, and
Reassigning Teachers and School
Personnel
(In Effect July 1, 2009)
Handout, page 6
Deadline: Classroom Teachers’ Early
Notice of Year-End Retirement,
Qualifying for $500 Bonus

Old Law


Must give notice to the
county board on or
before February 1
No guidance on posting
position or retracting the
year-end retirement

New Law



Must give notice to the
county board on or
before December 1
Board may post vacancy
for next year once notice
is given
For unforeseen financial
hardship, may keep job if
forfeit $500 bonus
Deadline: For Any Employee to
Exercise Right to Retire at Year’s
End, Regardless of Board’s Wishes

Old Law

Must deliver written
resignation on or
before the first
Monday in April

New Law

Must deliver written
resignation on or
before February 1
Deadline: Board’s Vote to Terminate
Employee’s Continuing Contract at
Year-End for Lack of Need

Old Law


Must vote on or before
the first Monday in April
Note: Prior to the vote,
employee’s must be
given advance written
notice and the
opportunity for a
hearing

New Law


Must vote on or before
February 1
Note: Prior to the vote,
employee’s must be
given advance written
notice and the
opportunity for a
hearing
Deadline: Superintendent’s Notification of
Employees Who Are Being Considered
for Transfer for the Next Year

Old Law

On or before the first
Monday in April

New Law

On or before
February 1
Deadline: Board’s Receipt and Approval
of Superintendent’s List of Employees to
Be Considered for Transfer for the
Ensuing Year

Old Law

On or before the first
Monday in May

New Law

On or before March
15
Deadline: Board’s Acceptance of
Superintendent’s List of Probationary
Employees to Be Awarded Another
Contract

Old Law

On or before the first
Monday in May

New Law

On or before March
15
The New Deadlines
Early notice retirement
December 1
Year end resignation
February 1
Vote: RIF terminations
February 1
Advance Notice: Transfer
February 1
Vote: Transfer list
March 15
Vote: Probationary list
March 15
Additional Provisions

Teacher contracts may be signed conditioned
upon the issuance of a teaching certificate
prior to the start of the employment term, if
necessary to facilitate employment of



employable professional personnel, and
recent graduates of teacher education programs
who have not yet attained certification
House Bill 2566
Malicious Assault and Battery
(In Effect July 10, 2009)
Handout, page 11

Makes it




a felony to maliciously or unlawfully assault,
a misdemeanor or felony (second offense)
to batter, and
a misdemeanor to assault,
certain persons known by the
perpetrator to be acting in an official
capacity


Current Law
Protects:














police officers
probation officers
conservation officers
humane officers
EMS personnel
health care workers
protective service workers
firefighters
State Fire Marshall or
employees
Division of Forestry
employees
county correctional
employees
urban mass transportation
system employees
court security personnel, or
PSC motor carrier inspectors
or enforcement officers


New Law
Protects:



any officer or employee of
the state or a political
subdivision
a person under contract with
a state agency or political
subdivision
health care workers
employed by or under
contract to a hospital,
county or district health
department, long-term care
facility, physician’s office,
clinic, or outpatient
treatment facility
House Bill 3146
Seniority Rights for Service
Personnel
(In Effect July 10, 2009)
Handout, page 14
Current Law: Consider Applicants for
Posted Service Vacancies in This Order
1.
Regular service personnel
A.
B.
2.
3.
4.
5.
currently employed in the classification category of the
vacancy
currently employed in another classification category
Service personnel whose employment has been
discontinued in a RIF
Professionals who held temporary service jobs
before 7/29/72 & apply for such positions
Substitute service personnel
New service personnel
New Law: Consider “Qualified” Applicants in
This Order







Regular personnel holding a title in the classification
Personnel whose employment has been RIFdiscontinued who have held a title in the classification
Regular personnel who do not hold a title in the
classification
Personnel whose employment has been RIFdiscontinued who have not held a title in the
classification
Substitutes who hold a title in the classification
Substitutes who do not hold a title in the classification
New service personnel
New Law, Old Law, Side by Side
Regular service personnel
1.
A.
B.
2.
3.
4.
5.
currently employed in the
classification category of
the vacancy
currently employed in
another classification
category
Service personnel whose
employment has been
discontinued in a RIF
Professionals who held
temporary service jobs
before 7/29/72 & apply for
such positions
Substitute service
personnel
New service personnel
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Regular personnel holding a
title in the classification
Personnel whose employment
has been RIF-discontinued
who have held a title in the
classification
Regular personnel who do not
hold a title in the classification
Personnel whose employment
has been RIF-discontinued
who have not held a title in the
classification
Substitutes who hold a title in
the classification
Substitutes who do not hold a
title in the classification
New service personnel
New “Seniority” Right: Aides

“The assignment of an aide to a particular position
within a school is based on seniority within the aide
classification category if the aide is qualified for the
position”






Does the aide have a choice?
Does this refer to the initial assignment? Might the
assignments change from year to year, or during a year, as
different aides enter and leave the school?
Does the new right affect the aide “stay put” rules?
Does it affect itinerant or countywide aides when assigned
to particular schools?
Is a “transportation aide” assigned “within a school”?
When a substitute is assigned for an absent aide, do the
assignments change based upon the substitute’s seniority?
New “Seniority” Right: Custodians

“Assignment of a custodian to work shifts in a school
or work site is based on seniority within the
custodian classification category”





Does the custodian have a choice?
Does this refer to the initial assignment? Might the
assignments change from year to year, or during a year, as
different custodians enter and leave the school?
Can a more senior Custodian I, II, or III take the Head
Custodian’s shift, relegating the Head Custodian to a shift
where he or she is ineffective as Head Custodian?
What about multiclassified bus operator/custodians? Could
the new seniority right complicate those multiclassifications or make the holders into “split shift” workers?
When a substitute is assigned for an absent custodian, do
the assignments change based upon the substitute’s
seniority?
Finance
Senate Bill 243
General Obligation Bonds
(In Effect July 9, 2009)
Handout, page 1
House Bill 2530
Public School Support
(In Effect July 1, 2009)
Handout, page 10
Business
Senate Bill 464
PEIA Fee for Paper Transactions
(In Effect July 9, 2009)
Handout, page 3
Senate Bill 492
PEIA Retirement Requirements
(In Effect July 10, 2009)
Handout, page 4
Senate Bill 481
Providing Documentation to PEIA
(In Effect July 10, 2009)
Handout, page 3
House Bill 3313
Depositories May Provide Letters of
Credit
(In Effect July 9, 2009)
Handout, page 17
Senate Bill 537
Workers’ Compensation
(In Effect July 10, 2009)
Handout, page 5
Public
Officials
Senate Bill 258
Local Fiscal Bodies Not Liable for
Certain Deficits
(In Effect April 11, 2009)
Handout, page 2
House Bill 2869
Post-Election Financial Statements
(In Effect July 10, 2009)
Handout, page 13
House Bill 3208
Appointing County Superintendents;
County Board Member Training
(In Effect July 9, 2009)
Handout, page 15
Retirement
House Bill 2703
State Teachers Retirement System
(In Effect July 6, 2009)
Handout, page 12
House Bill 2734
Minimum Guarantees to Transferees
from Defined Contribution System
(In Effect July 7, 2009)
Handout, page 13
House Bill 2870
Extending Buyback Deadline to the
State Teachers Retirement System
(In Effect April 11, 2009)
Handout, page 13
Some U.S. Supreme Court
Decisions of Particular Interest
to Public School Administrators
From our nation’s highest court
Handout, page 18
4. Forest Grove School District v.
T.A.
Handout, page 19

IDEA authorizes reimbursing parents for
private special education services when the
public schools fail to provide FAPE, and the
private placement is appropriate

This is the case even if the child never
received special education services from the
school district
5. Safford Unified School District
#1 v. Redding
Handout, page 19


School searches must be reasonably
related to their objectives and not
excessively intrusive given the age and
sex of the student and the nature of the
infraction
A strip search is categorically distinct
Note: The Strip Search Rule in West
Virginia

State of West Virginia ex rel Cathy
Galford v. Mark Anthony B. (W. Va.
Supreme Court, 1993)

Two-stage inquiry:


Was the search justified in its inception?
Was it conducted in a manner reasonably
related in scope to the circumstances
justifying the search?

Was the search justified in its inception?



Yes, if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the
search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or
is violating either the law or the rules of the school
Totality of the circumstances
Was the search justified in its scope?



Yes, if the measures adopted were reasonably related to
the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in
light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the
infraction
Totality of the circumstances
A search justified by reasonable suspicion for one item may
give rise to reasonable suspicion for another item
Some W. Va. Supreme Court
Decisions of Particular Interest
to Public School Administrators
From our state’s highest court
Handout, page 20
1. Mayo v. West Virginia SSAC

WVSSAC is not a state agency

Its rules are not unconstitutional for
failing to allow administrative review
before a multi-game suspension is
imposed for a rule violation
3. In Re: Charleston Gazette
FOIA Request

Construe FOIA liberally in favor of
disclosure; construe the exemptions
narrowly

5-factor test of whether a disclosure of
personal information would be an
unreasonable invasion of privacy
4. Alderman v. Pocahontas County
Board of Education

There are restrictions on a public
employee’s right to free speech

To be protected, the employee’s speech
must meet three standards

The employee has the burden to show
his or speech is protected
Some Grievance Board Opinions
of Particular Interest to Public
School Administrators
Before personnel issues land in the
courts, they must often first visit the
Grievance Board
Handout, page 22
1. Painter v. Kanawha - immorality; mitigation
2. Ketz v. Raleigh - grievance abandonment
3. Posey v. Lewis - incompetency
4. Ribas v. Monongalia - preschool sp. needs
5. Howell v. Mercer – posting details
6. Long v. Mason – disciplinary burden of proof
7. Wimmer v. Braxton – credibility of witnesses
8. Barber v. Mercer – standing to grieve
9. Jamison v. Monongalia – precedent; travel
10. Jamison v. Monongalia – summer subs
11. Nolan v. Wood – back pay; extended year
12. Scarbrough v. Fayette – summer seniority
13. Bailey v. McDowell – supts; intervention
14. Mullins v. Kanawha – no service subs
15. Smith v. Mingo – first set of 7 factors
16. Byrd v. Kanawha – lesson plans
17. Murphy v. Pleasants – timeliness; certificate
18. Shute v. Brooke – no math; board’s role
19. Martin v. Barbour – annual coach contracts
20. Liptrap v. Putnam – alternate procedures
21. Scyoc v. Monongalia – grievance trigger
22. Mullins v. McDowell – intervenors; errors
23. Barlow v. Mercer – discrimination motive
24. Williams v. South Branch – filing at level I
25. Browning v. Logan – deadline waivers
26. Fulmer v. Kanawha – tandem proceedings
27. Geho v. Marshall – conduct code; priors
28. Sanders v. Lincoln - error fix & new claims
29. Waggoner v. Cabell - correctable
30. Bowles v. Putnam - step-up domino
31. Toney v. Lincoln - fixing errors; relegation
32. Goodson v. Fayette - extra duty runs
33. Toney v. Lincoln - elements of reprisal
34. Graham v. Wood - extracurricular “recall”
35. Bailey v. McDowell - ignorance; trust
36. Mascaro v. Marion - subs as grievants
37. Henry v. McDowell - math; state intervention
38. Swick v. South Branch - level I filing; default
39. Straight v. Kanawha - errors don’t bind
40. Boothe v. Jackson - question abstraction
41. Lynch v. Raleigh - uniformity; classification
42. Summers v. Logan - penal enhancement
43. Romano v. Marion - imp. plan ≠ evaluatn
44. White v. Monongalia - summer extra duty
45. Gunnoe v. Raleigh - uniformity & retirees
46. Farmer v. Logan - 504 insubordination
47. Hudok v. Randolph - reprisal/retaliation
48. Morris v. Raleigh - expanding definitions
49. Fuccy v. Hancock - competency testing
50. Sisler v. Pocahontas - itinerant; waiver
51. Yeager v. Kanawha - temporary service sub
52. Browning v. Logan - default & consequences
53. Cook v. Logan - abandoned claims
54. Legg-Hendrickson v. Fayette - picket line
55. James v. Putnam - emergency subs
56. Hoover v. Wirt - insubordination; mitigation
57. Vanguilder v. Marion - job bid format
58. Daniel v. Fayette - waivers not implied
59. Nelson v. Boone - competency testing
60. Carder v. McDowell - voluntary resignation
61. Jenkins v. Jefferson - nonrenewal discretion
62. Rodriques v. Grant - force factors
63. Komorowski v. Marshall - retired & moot
64. Filberto v. Hancock - preferred qualifications
65. Carter v. Nicholas - principal silence
66. Darby v. Kanawha - credibility/burden of proof
67. Vance v. Jefferson - contract modification
68. Marsicano v. Marion - no longer preferred
69. Kowalsky v. Monroe - back pay limit
70. Bailey v. McDowell - asst. supt. licensure
71. Nelson v. Lincoln - state intervention; bumps
72. Ranson v. Kanawha - alien sub; no standing
73. Blackburn v. Brooke - labels; charges
74. English v. Logan - race discrimination
75. Farr v. Wood - aide/paraprofessional
RIFs
Some State Superintendent
Interpretations of Particular Interest
to Public School Administrators
When issued, they are often the only
published advice on issues of school
law
Handout, page 37
2. Weighted Grades
Changing grading policies after
student registration and/or the
beginning of classes is unfair and
may be an abuse of discretion absent
a non-arbitrary or compelling reason
3. Annual LSIC Report to
Countywide Council
County boards are to be the
Countywide Councils on Productive
and Safe Schools that receive LSICs’
annual reports on productive and
safe schools
LSICs should never review individual
student disciplinary data
2009-10 Red Flag Legal Issues
for School Administrators
Not always recognized as they develop
Costly in terms of time, resources, and
leadership
1. Proper responses to allegations of
employee misconduct


Reports to law enforcement
Reports to Child Protective Services


Reports to State Police and State Superintendent



Report abuse! W. Va. Code § 49-6A-2 (48 hours; principal’s
duty)
Report deadly weapons! W. Va. Code § 61-7-11a (72 hours;
principal’s duty)
Scrupulously following county policy in taking
complaints, investigating and acting
Interview procedures, especially involving
students
2. Searches of students and their
possessions

What is a search?





Police action that intrudes upon and invades an
individual’s justifiable expectation of privacy
Includes people, not just places
Purses, pockets, backpacks, clothing, books, gym
bags
Lockers and cars
Urine, blood, breath
3. Disciplining students with
disabilities




State statute v. reauthorized IDEA and State
Policy 2419
Who is entitled to special procedures?
Necessary elements of any manifestation
determination
Consequences
4. Workforce realignments, including
aides and custodians






House Bill 3146 (handout, page 14)
Farr v. Wood County Board of Education
(handout, page 36)
RIF-related terminations, non-renewals, and
transfers
Other terminations, non-renewals, and
transfers
Administrative reassignments
Mutual agreements
5. Unauthorized expenditures







West Virginia Code 11-9-25 et seq.
Accounting Procedures Manual
Civil and possible criminal consequences
Unauthorized manner
Unauthorized purpose
In excess of available funds for current year
Be sure you have authority
6. Releasing Student Records





FERPA; State Policy
Education records
Personally identifiable information
Right to review and contest
Limited disclosure: exceptions
7. Evaluations and Improvement
Plans




State Board Policy 5310 (professional
employees); local policy (service personnel)
Beginning of year explanation
All time lines (conferences, due dates)
Improvement plans, teams, periods, and
performance
8. Bullying and sexual harassment




Scrupulous adherence to the requirements of
county policy
No “screening” of complaints unless
expressly authorized by county policy
No insistence on written complaints
Cannot turn a blind eye
9. Filling professional vacancies


All openings must be posted
There is no legal basis for preferring



regular employees over substitutes
“in-county” applicants over “out-of-county”
If the process is unfair in a way that might have
made a difference, the hiring decision may be
reversed on that basis alone





misapplication of the qualification criteria
relatives on the interview team
abuse of teacher applicant interviews
pre-selection and pre-judgment
reprisal
10. Off-Campus Student Behavior






Technology abuse
Physical altercations
Arrests, juvenile offenses, criminal convictions
Lifestyle choices
Relationships
Did off-campus, out-of-school misconduct have a
sufficient “nexus” with the school, and cause such a
foreseeable disruption at school, that discipline is
warranted for conduct that, if committed in-school or
at a school-sponsored activity, would violate school
rules?
Thank you for taking time to
update your understanding of
the school laws
And thank you for all you do to improve
student achievement in West Virginia’s
schools