At the end of last month, the Ohio Supreme Court strictly construed the teacher observation statute to find that the defendant school board did not comply with the statute before voting to not renew the plaintiff teacher’s employment. Jones v. Kent City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., No. 2024-Ohio-2844. “When considering nonrenewal of a teacher’s limited teaching contract under R.C. 3319.11(E), school board must conduct three observations of the teacher being actually engaged in teaching to comply with the teacher-evaluation procedures set forth in R.C. 3319.111(E) . . .” The trial court was found to have abused its discretion in affirming the district's decision when the third evaluation (during the teacher's medical leave) constituted only interviews with students instead of observation of actual teaching.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had been
hired in 2019 on a one-year basis after having taught for 20 years in that
district. In October, he was given an
unpaid 3-day suspension for leaving five minutes early on six days (i.e., when
the students were dismissed). On
January 6, 2020 he left his class unsupervised when he did not appear for work
after apparently mistakenly scheduling a substitute for the following Monday while
he was ill on January 5. He was then
notified that he would be subjected to formal observation prior to his contract
being up for non-renewal. He received
one formal observation under the statute before COVID. He had a second formal observation during
remote learning after the COVIC pandemic started. His third observation was scheduled for May 11,
but he called off that day, was hospitalized and not released by his physician
to return to work until June 1 -- after the deadline for the school to complete
the third formal observation under the statute. The observer, instead, interviewed his
students on May 15. The school district
proceeded to vote to not renew his contract on May 19, even before receiving
the report of the evaluations. He was
notified on May 20. “On May 28, the evaluator submitted a
final-summative-rating report regarding Jones’s effectiveness as a teacher. The
evaluator rated Jones at the overall highest level: “Accomplished.”
The teacher appealed to the common pleas court, which affirmed the board’s decision. The Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that the teacher had not received formal evaluation on three times as required by the statute. The Supreme Court affirmed. “Under R.C. 3319.111(E), school boards “shall require at least three formal observations” of any teacher employed under a limited contract if the school board is considering nonrenewal of that contract.” The interview with his students when he was on medical leave did not constitute the formal observation of his teaching as required under the statute. The department of education and union could not modify the statutory requirement by regulation or agreement.
We are mindful that because [the teacher] was medically
excused from work by his doctor from May 11 through June 1, it was not possible for the
board to observe him and make a decision about his reemployment before the June
1 deadline set forth in R.C. 3319.11(E). We also recognize the unique
challenges and uncertainties that schools faced in spring 2020 as a result of
the transition from in person to remote
learning occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. But we are bound to apply the
unambiguous language of R.C. 3319.111(E). Therefore, in accord with our history
of ordering reinstatement to enforce compliance with R.C. 3319.11(G)(7), we order
the board to reinstate [him].
