COURT ORDERS - INJUNCTIONS Injunction #1 – The Guilford Case

PANC FALL CONFERENCE

OCTOBER 8, 2014

TEACHER CONTRACT LAW,

INJUNCTIONS, NEW LEGISLATION

AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PERSONNEL

Richard A. Schwartz

Schwartz & Shaw PLLC

19 W. Hargett Street, Suite 1000

Raleigh, NC 27601

(919) 821-9011

© 2014 Schwartz & Shaw, P.L.L.C

1

What The Heck Happened Over the

Last Year?

• Model Contract

• Professional Status Teacher Contract?

• Due Process?

• 4 Yr Contract?

• Masters Pay?

• Longevity Pay?

• 2 Yr Contract?

• Probationary Contract?

• 1 Yr. Contract

• Raise?

• Career Contract

• 25% Selection Process?

• 35% Selection Process?

• 5% Raise?

• 5.5% Raise?

• 7% Raise?

• Evaluations for Non-Career Status Teachers

• Career Status for Teachers

• Career Status for Administrators

• Keep Tenure = Frozen Salary Schedule?

• Give up Tenure? = 11% Senate Raise

• Guilford/Durham Injunction

• Statewide Injunction (NCAE)

• New Court for Constitutional Claims

• Teacher Nonrenewals

• Administration Nonrenewals

• 3 year Contract?

• Local Board of Education Tenure/Due Process?

• Career Pathways

• Advanced Degree Pay?

• Career Status as Teacher for Contract Administrator

• 37 to 6-Step Salary Schedule

• Local Plans for Differentiated Pay

• 5-Year Vesting

• Pension Spiking

• Employing Career Teacher from another LEA?

• (Insert your own new idea here…)

2

• Back in the old days…….

• (before July 26, 2013)

• Tenure Law – since July 1972

3

TENURE LAW PROVIDED

• Teachers served probationary period

• Probationary teachers protected during contract year

• Could be renewed (nonrenewed) annually

• Awarded career status or not renewed at end of probation

• 15 potential grounds for dismissal/demotion

• Extensive due process rights

4

TENURE LAW PROVIDED

• At its essence, tenure law provides a way to earn a property interest (career status) and the method by which it can be removed.

• 14th Amendment – no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.

5

BUT THAT WAS BEFORE ……

THE

2013

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

RODE INTO TOWN

6

2013 GENERAL ASSEMBLY

• Massive changes to tenure law included in 2013

Appropriations Act (S.L. 2013-360, sec. 9.6).

 Ineligible to earn tenure on or after August 1, 2013.

 All tenure eliminated June 30, 2018.

 25% selection process for teachers to relinquish any interest in tenure and get 4-year contract with $500 annual salary increases.

 Created new system of employment (G.S. §115C-325.1 to -325.13) for non-tenured teachers now and for all teachers after 6/30/18

 Tenure law (G.S. §115C-325) repealed effected

6/30/18

 Beginning 7/1/18, all teachers employed on 1, 2 or 4year contracts.

7

LEGAL CHALLENGES

• 2013 – NCAE and individual teachers file lawsuit vs. State of N.C. in Wake

County claiming violations of constitutional and contract rights of teachers (the “NCAE Case”)

8

LEGAL CHALLENGES

• 2014 – Guilford Board of Education and its Superintendent Mo Green and

Durham Board of Education file lawsuit vs. State of N.C. claiming violations of their contract rights and constitutional rights (the “Guilford case”)

9

INJUNCTION #1

THE GUILFORD CASE

10

COURT ORDERS - INJUNCTIONS

Injunction #1 – The Guilford Case

• Plaintiffs (school boards and superintendent) claimed the new laws interfered with the boards’ existing contracts with teachers and required them to implement an unconstitutionally vague process (the

25% plan) to require teachers to give up their vested rights to tenure.

11



• Judge Richard Doughton entered an

Order May 9, 2014, granting Plaintiffs’

Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

• Order denied State’s Motion to Dismiss.

• Order applied only to Guilford and

Durham.

12



• Order prevented from being implemented those sections of the new law dealing with

25% selection process and 4-year contracts (9.6(g) and 9.6(h) of S.L. 2013-

360) and prevented them from being applied to the Boards’ existing contracts with tenured teachers and relieved Plaintiff school boards and superintendent of any duty to make any selection or to offer contracts pursuant to those provisions.

13



• The Court’s findings were significant and included:

 The Act was to retroactively abolish vested career status rights (tenure) and thereby invalidate existing tenure contracts between boards and their teachers.

 The 25% selection process would require local boards to engage in a process where teachers who sign 4-year contracts would have to waive their vested tenure rights.

14




 The 25% provisions were “vaguely and obscurely drafted” and “provide no discernible, workable standards to guide local boards of education and their superintendents.”

 The substantive and procedural protections of tenure help to incentivize teachers to remain employed by their LEAs.

15




 Both the State and local school boards tell teachers, from the beginning and throughout their employment, that tenure is a significant benefit, providing important rights and protections, earned as a result of excellent performance.

16




 Local boards benefit directly from the value of awarding tenure, which helps provide a stable professional workforce and thus enables the boards’ ability to provide educational opportunities mandated by the

N.C. Constitution.

17




 The court took note of resolutions passed by school boards across the state expressing concerns about the negative impact of the Act’s retroactive abolition of tenure and the impact the 25% provision would have on job satisfaction, workforce stability, collegiality and on the boards’ ability to provide high quality education to their students.

18




 The court also noted that Plaintiffs raised a legitimate concern that the salary increases that were part of the 25% provision may not be funded by the General Assembly for the 4-year terms of the contracts to be offered.

19




 The court determined that several state laws authorize school boards to sue to protect their property -- including their property interests in their contracts with their tenured teachers -- and to sue for a declaration regarding the constitutionality of laws they are required to apply.

20




 Believing the new laws to be unconstitutional puts Plaintiffs in the position of having to violate their oaths (to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. and

N.C.) or violate the new law. Therefore, they have standing to bring this action and ask the court for a declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of the Act.

21



• The standard for ordering a preliminary injunction requires the court to determine two main things:

 First, is the plaintiff able to show a likelihood of success on the merits of the case at trial; and

 Second, whether a plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied, or is the injunction necessary to protect a plaintiff’s rights until the case is decided.

22



Likelihood of Success on the Merits:

• Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the Act would impair their rights to contract because:

 Contracts already exist between the boards and career teachers under the statutory scheme that is now repealed by the Act.

 The Act’s retroactive abolishment of tenure invalidates those existing contracts.

 The state’s actions to impair those existing contracts “is neither reasonable nor necessary to further an important public purpose.”

23




 In making this determination, the court specifically noted that, in 1995, the General

Assembly had replaced the former school administrator tenure system with a contract-based system, but applied it prospectively only -- not to those already vested in administrator tenure.

24




 The 25% provision effectively would require boards and superintendents to violate their oaths of office by requiring them to take actions in violation of the

Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. 1,

§10), which prevents any state from passing legislation that “impair[s] the obligation of contracts.”

 Boards are placed in a position “to impose economic duress upon their teachers” by virtue of the 25% provision of the Act, which would violate their duty and oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

25




 Plaintiffs demonstrated likelihood of success on their claim that retroactive abolition of vested tenure rights amounts to an unconstitutional taking of their property and liberty interests in their existing contracts with tenured teachers, in violation of Article

I, sec. 19 of the N.C. Constitution.

26



Likelihood of Success: Void for Vagueness

 “Void-for-vagueness” doctrine – requires that laws must contain enough specificity to allow regulated entities to know what is required or prohibited and to provide

“suitably precise standards” to enable those who apply the law to do so consistently and fairly.

 Plaintiffs demonstrated a likely violation of this doctrine by showing the 25% provision is likely void for vagueness.

27




 The 25% provision “is so obscurely and imprecisely drafted” that boards cannot know what is required or prohibited.

 25% provision fails to provide sufficiently explicit guidelines for local boards:

• No workable standards to determine the eligible pool of “teachers”

28




• No standards to determine how to select exactly 25%

• No definition of “teachers” to be considered.

29




• No guidance on determining when

“three consecutive years” begins/ends.

• No guidance on determining when

“three consecutive years” of employment begins/ends

• No guidance on period of time a teacher must be “proficient” to be eligible.

30




 How is proficiency to be measured for nonclassroom teachers (if they are included in

“teachers” in the eligible pool)?

 How is “proficiency” to be determined” Is it proficient on all ratings? An average?

31




 How does “proficiency” meet the Act’s purpose to “recognize and reward excellent teachers” if proficiency is a measure of basic competence?

 No discernible standards or guidance for superintendents to select 25% from the pool of eligible teachers. The court noted a wide variety of schemes being developed across the state, including volunteers to de-select or select, point systems, random lotteries, etc., leaving boards open to claims of “arbitrariness, bias, discrimination and disparate impact.”

32




 No guidance or standards for a board to override superintendent’s recommendation and select others. The court noted this disrupts and is contrary to the ordinary process for all other employment matters, where the superintendent recommends, and the board either approves or disapproves, but does not substitute its own judgment for that of its superintendent.

33




 The court noted resolutions from local school boards across the state reflected uncertainty about how to fairly apply the

25% provision.

34



Irreparable Harm

 The court had no difficulty determining that the unconstitutional taking of a vested property and liberty interest in the boards’ existing contracts with tenured teachers would constitute irreparable harm.

35



Irreparable Harm

 Similarly the lack of guidance on standards in the 25% provision exposes boards to multiple threats of litigation from:

 “teachers” who claim they met the standards to be in the eligible pool but were not included.

 The 75% of teachers in the pool who were not selected.

 Teachers who sign 4-year contracts and claim they “waived” their tenure rights under economic duress.

36



Irreparable Harm

 General Assembly’s staff had offered opinion that board members could face criminal prosecution for failing/refusing to enforce the law.

 Salary obligations for the 25%, if not funded, could expose boards to financial liability.

37



Irreparable Harm

 Irreparable harm would result from undermining both teacher morale and plaintiffs’ relationships with tenured teachers, and their ability to provide a constitutionally adequate education to their students.

38



• The court determined injunction was necessary to protect plaintiffs’ rights during the course of this litigation.

• Injunction GRANTED: Applies only to tenure contracts in Guilford and

Durham that were in effect on July 26,

2013, the date the Act became effective.

39

INJUNCTION #2

THE NCAE CASE

40

COURT ORDERS – INJUNCTIONS

Injunction #2 – The NCAE Case

• Plaintiffs (NCAE and individual tenured and probationary teachers) challenged the constitutionality of the Act’s provision abolishing their vested career status/tenure rights and the rights of probationary teachers who accepted their contracts with the promise they would be eligible for tenure at the end of their probationary period.

41



• Judge Robert Hobgood entered an

Order June 6, 2014, that applies statewide.

42



• The Order grants Summary Judgment in favor of all of the plaintiffs (except for the one probationary teacher) on their claims that the Act would violate the rights of already tenured teachers but grants Summary Judgment for the

State on the claims brought by probationary teacher.

43



• The Order declares Sections 9.6 and 9.7 of Session Law 2013-360

“unconstitutional with regard to teachers who had received career status before July 26, 2013,” and declares “that the 25% Provision is unconstitutional” and permanently enjoins the State from implementing and enforcing the 25% Provision and

Sections 9.6 and 9.7 with regard to tenured teachers.

44



Findings of this Order include:

• Background and workings of the tenure law since 1970’s

• Plaintiff teachers were “statutorily promised career status rights in exchange for meeting the requirements” of the tenure law and relied on that promise when they made decisions to accept and remain in their teaching positions.

45




• “The protections of the Career Status Law are a valuable part of the overall package of compensation and benefits” for teachers

“that they bargained for both in accepting employment as teachers in North Carolina school districts and remaining in those positions.”

• School administrators believe tenure protections “help attract and retain teachers despite the low salaries established by state salary schedules.”

46




• The 4-year probationary period provides adequate time to evaluate teachers and make informed tenure decisions.

47




• The tenure law provides school administrators adequate tools to address poorly performing teachers and “[i]n the vast majority of cases” where a district seeks to remove a tenured teacher, the teacher resigns without a hearing. On

“those few occasions” where there are dismissal hearings, “school administrators have found that the process is not onerous for the districts.”

48




• There is no evidence the tenure law prevents the separation of teachers when the LEA believes it is necessary and administrators “are able to make all necessary personnel changes within the framework of the Career Status Law.”

49




• The act “fundamentally alters” the system of employment in 3 crucial ways:

 First, as of August 1, 2013, no more tenure will be granted and teachers without it will only be employed on one-year contracts until 2018 (except for those in the 25% provision).

 Second, all tenure is revoked July 1, 2018. Thereafter career status teachers will only be employed on one, two or 4-year contracts that may be non-renewed, when previously they could only be dismissed for 15 enumerated grounds. If nonrenewed, boards “will have unfettered discretion to decide whether or not” to grant a hearing.

 Third, the 25% provision, apart from referencing “proficiency on the teacher evaluation instrument,” provides no discernible standards to (1) identify teachers eligible for 4year contracts and related salary and (2) select the 25%.

50



This Court concluded:

• The Act substantially impairs the contract rights of tenured teachers in violation of the Contract Clause in Art I, section

10 of the U.S. Constitution because: (1) a contract obligation exists for those teachers with career status as of July 26,

2013; (2) the State’s actions will impair those contract rights that already exist; and (3) the repeal of career status “does not further any public purpose because the undisputed facts demonstrate that under the Career Status Law, school administrators already have the ability to dismiss career status teachers for inadequate performance whenever necessary … Moreover, eliminating career status hurts North

Carolina public schools by making it harder for school districts to attract and retain quality teachers.” Even if there was need for more latitude to remove ineffective tenured teachers, the state could have done so by less drastic means that do not impair the contractual rights of tenured teachers.

51



• Contract rights, including those created by statute constitute property rights within the Law of the Land Clause of the

N.C. Constitution (Art I, sec. 19) which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property by the State without just compensation. The Act does just that, and this provides a separate, independent ground for concluding it is unconstitutional.

52



• Probationary teachers also haven’t yet earned career status do not have contractual rights protected by the Land of the Land Clause.

53



• The 25% provision “is inextricably tied” to the revocation of tenure rights that would occur for all in 2018 and it cannot be severed from the unconstitutional revocation of tenure.

54

LEGAL CHALLENGES

• Guilford Case – injunction has been issued and the case is still pending, awaiting trial in superior court.

• NCAE Case – The Order for Summary

Judgment has been appealed by both sides to the N.C. Court of Appeals.

55

SO……

What happened next?

56

SINCE THE INJUNCTIONS

• Although it considered many options, the 2014 General Assembly ultimately took no direct action dealing with the injunctions.

57


• While the NCAE lawsuit is on appeal this is what is (currently) left of the Act:

 Tenure remains for those who earned it prior to 8/1/13 and will not be abolished in

2018.

58




2018. But, this is on appeal.

59





 Those probationary teachers who thought they were on the tenure track are no longer eligible for tenure.

60





 Those probationary teachers who thought they were on the tenure track are no longer eligible for tenure. But, this is on appeal.

61


 The 25% selection process, four-year contracts and corresponding $500 annual raises are out.

62


 The 25% selection process, four-year contracts and corresponding $500 annual raises are out. But, this is on appeal.

63



 Probationary teachers who thought they were on the tenure track are currently oneyear contract teachers (under sec. 9.6(f) of the Act) and on July 1, 2014, became subject to the new “non-tenure laws” in

G.S. 115C-325.1 to -325.13 (under sec.

9.6(i) and (j)).

64



 Probationary teachers who thought they were on the tenure track are currently oneyear contract teachers (under sec. 9.6(f) of the Act) and on July 1, 2014, became subject to the new “non-tenure laws” in

G.S. 115C-325.1 to -325.13 (under sec.

9.6(i) and (j)). But, this is on appeal.

65


 Currently we have only 2 types of full-time teachers:

 Tenured teachers who earned career status prior to 8/1/13 and are subject to G.S. 115C-325

(tenure law).

 Teachers on one-year contracts whose employment is governed by new G.S. 115C-

325.1 to -325.13, which became effective July 1,

2014.

66

APPLYING THE NEW LAWS

For Contract Teachers:

• The definition of “year” is now July 1 –

June 30 (G.S. 115C-325.1(7)).

• Personnel files requirements in new

G.S. 115C.325.2 are the same as in tenure law (G.S. 115C-325(b)).

67



• Teacher contracts and renewals – despite the language in new G.S. 115C-325.3(a) allowing contracts or renewals to be for terms of one, two or four school years for those teachers employed by the local board “for three years or more,” and despite the language in new G.S. 115C-325.3(b) allowing the superintendent to recommend renewed contracts for a term longer than one school year “if the teacher has shown effectiveness by proficiency on the evaluation instrument,” and despite language in new G.S. 115C-325.3(b) that would allow board to offer renewed contract for a different term than recommended by superintendent, these provisions are overriden by sec. 9.6(f) of the Act (S.L. 2013-360) which still applies to all teachers who did not have career status prior to

8/1/13. These teachers may now only be offered one-year contracts until the 2018-19 school year. Thereafter, these provisions will take effect.

68



• Query: What does “year” mean as applied to those teachers employed “for three years or more”?

• Query: What does “shown effectiveness by proficiency on the evaluation instrument” mean, and how is it applied?

69



Nonrenewals (G.S. 115C-325.3(d)(e)(f)):

• Superintendent gives notice to teacher by

June 1 of decision not to recommend a new contract. No reasons are required to be provided. (G.S. 115C-325.3(d)).

• Teacher has the right to petition board for a hearing within 10 days of receipt of superintendent’s notice. Board has complete discretion whether or not to grant hearing and must notify teacher. There is no right to a hearing or to appeal to court.

70




• Board shall notify teacher of decision to not renew by June 15, unless it decides to grant a hearing.

• If board grants a hearing it is conducted under G.S. 115C-45(c) and board must notify teacher of its decision within 10 days of hearing or later date agreed to in writing by superintendent and teacher.

71




• Decision (by superintendent or the board) not to offer renewed contract may not be arbitrary, capricious, personal, political, discriminatory, or on any basis prohibited by state or federal law.

72




• If teacher does not receive a new contract offer or notice of nonrenewal and continues to teach without a contract, the board, upon discovery of this, shall either:

 Offer a contract expiring no later than June 30 of the current school year; or

 Dismiss the teacher without a hearing or appeal

(this teacher is “considered an at-will employee”) and provide one additional month of pay.

73



Dismisssal or Demotion (G.S. 115C-325.3(c). -325.4,

-325.6 and -325.7):

• Same 15 grounds as in tenure law, but in different order.

• Inadequate performance is defined in G.S. 115C-

325.4(a)(1):

 Still must look to evaluation data and local board standards

 Failure to be proficient “on any standard” of the evaluation

 Otherwise performing below standard

74



• Procedure for Notice of intent to recommend dismissal or demotion under G.S. 115C-325.6 is essentially the same as under tenure law.

• Hearing is only before school board under G.S. 115C-325.7. No option for separate hearing before stateappointed hearing officer, as under tenure law.

75



• New G.S. 115C-325.8 provides for appeal to superior court only on grounds that the decision was:

 In violation of constitutional provisions;

 In excess of board’s authority or jurisdiction.

 Made upon unlawful procedure.

 Affected by other error of law.

 Unsupported by substantial evidence.

 Arbitrary or capricious.

76



• Superior court may affirm or reverse board’s decision or send the case back to the board, but it “shall not” award monetary damages or direct the board to enter into an employment contract of more than one year ending June 30.

77



Low Performing Schools:

• New laws provide separate procedures for dismissals of principals and teachers and other professionals in low performing schools.

 Principals – G.S. 115C-325.12

 Teachers, asst. principals, directors – G.S. 115C-

325.13

• Right to hearing.

• Proceedings are before State Board of

Education.

78


Classified Employees Dismissal or

Demotion

• New law essentially establishes two classes of classified employees with different rights regarding employment

(sec. 9.6(k) of Act).

79


Classified Employees Dismissal or Demotion

• Employees employed before 7/1/14 remain

“super employees not quite at-will” with right to appeal any “final administrative decision” to the BOE regarding the “terms or conditions of employment” or their

“employment status” and may appeal BOE decision to superior court. They are entitled to written notice of reasons for dismissal, demotion or suspension without pay, prior to any BOE hearing.

80


Classified Employees Dismissal or

Demotion

• Employees employed on or after

7/1/14, have no “super powers” and are now employees at will. They are not entitled to written notice of reasons for dismissal, demotion or suspension without pay, but may still appeal “final administrative decision” on these matters to BOE, but not beyond.

81


Administrators (sec. 9.6(d) and 9.6(k) of the

Act)

• For “employees employed on or after 7/1/14,”

G.S. 115C-287.1 (the contract administrator law) is revised as follows:

 Dismissal/demotion is under new G.S. 115C-325.4.

 Nonrenewal – written notice by May 1, but no longer any right to receive reasons.

 Right to BOE hearing on nonrenewal, but not appeal.

Decision to nonrenew may not be arbitrary, capricious, personal, political, discriminatory or in violation of state or federal law.

82


• No right to return to teaching position if held career status as a teacher prior to administrator contract.

• Query: Does Judge Hobgood’s order restore career teacher status/rights to administrators?

83


• For “employees employed before

7/1/14” G.S. 115C-287.1 is unchanged, including retention of administrator tenure and career teacher status (in some LEA) upon expiration of contract.

• NOTE: Questions remain as to whom/how this applies to “employees”

(not “administrators”) employed on or after 7/1/14.

84

2014 GENERAL ASSEMBLY

• After considering a variety of proposals to address/respond to the problems with 25% provision, tenure and injunctions, the 2014 General Assembly did nothing to alter what is in the 2013

Appropriations Act.

• 2015 General Assembly may amend these provisions, or may wait to see how appeals are decided.

85

The New Model Teacher Contract

S.L. 2013-360 (S.B. 402), The

Appropriations Act, sec. 9.6.(e) provides:

SBE shall develop, by rule under the

Administrative Procedures Act, a model contract for use by local boards of education in awarding teacher contracts. SBE may adopt a temporary rule by “no later than

January 1, 2014,” but shall replace the temporary rule with a permanent rule “as soon as practicable.”

86


SBE did not adopt the model contract until its meeting on February 6, 2014, and “temporary rule” has been rejected by the Rules Review

Commission (RRC) because it was after the deadline in the law.

SBE will now have to go through normal rule making process, which can take 18 months.

See copy of “Model Employment Contract for

Teachers” as adopted by SBE on February 6,

2014, on next two slides.

87

88

89


You may still choose whether or not to use the “Model Employment Contract for

Teachers,” with or without changes.

Get your local attorney’s advice.

You are not required to use the model contract.

90

THE NEW MODEL TEACHER CONTRACT

Provisions in the model contract:

• Preamble – lists the position the teacher shall hold, while section 4, “Duties,” states that the contract “creates no right to any particular assignment or school site.” Consider whether you want to keep the sentence in the preamble or add to it so that it might say, “subject to section 4 below,…”

• The model contract would be used for any teacher who does not retain career status after

June 30, 2014.

91


• Term

• Compensation

• Qualifications

• Duties

• Extra or Special Duties – consider whether to include this in the contract. This provision states that special duties or assignments “will be described in a separate agreement and the additional compensation will not be considered salary for the purposes of computing” the Teacher’s salary, and that any return to regular duties “is not a demotion” as defined by the new [non-tenure] law (G.S. §§115C-

325.1 et seq.).

92


• Benefits

• Termination of Contract by Teacher – will be under the provisions and procedures of new G.S.

§§115C-325.1 et seq.

• Termination of Contract by Board – provides that the Board may alter the terms or terminate the contract pursuant to G.S. §§115C-325.1 et seq.

• Boilerplate Provisions – modification, severability, governing law.

93

2014 LEGISLATION

AFFECTING PERSONNEL

94

IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A COPY OF ANY

PIECE OF LEGISLATION, YOU MAY DO

ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

1.

Go to the General Assembly’s website at:

www.ncga.state.nc.us

or

2. Call “printed bills” at: 919-733-5648.

95

S.L. 2014-13 (S.B. 370) – Respect for

Student Prayer/Religious Activity

Effective Date: 6/19/14

• Adds to Public Schools Laws (Ch. 115C) a new Article 29D- Student Prayer and Religious Activity

• New N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-407.30, provides that students are permitted to voluntarily do any of the following:

 Pray, either silently or audibly and alone or with other students, to the same extent and under the same circumstances as a student is permitted to vocally or silently reflect, meditate, or speak on nonreligious matters alone or with other students in public schools.

 Express religious viewpoints in a public school to the same extent and under the same circumstances as a student is permitted to express viewpoints on nonreligious topics or subjects in the school.

 Speak to and attempt to share religious viewpoints with other students in a public school to the same extent and under the same circumstances as a student is permitted to speak to and attempt to share nonreligious viewpoints with other students.

 Possess or distribute religious literature in a public school, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, to the same extent and under the same circumstances as a student is permitted to possess or distribute literature on nonreligious topics or subjects in the school.

(cont.)

96

S.L. 2014-13 (S.B. 370) – Respect for Student Prayer/Religious

Activity (cont.)

• Organize prayer groups, religious clubs, "see you at the pole" gatherings, or other religious gatherings before, during, and after school to the same extent that students are permitted to organize other noncurricular student activities and groups. Religious groups shall be given the same access to school facilities for assembling as is given to other noncurricular groups without discrimination based on the religious content of the students' expression. If student groups that meet for nonreligious activities are permitted to advertise or announce meetings of the groups, the school district shall not discriminate against groups that meet for prayer or other religious speech. A local board of education and local school administrative unit may disclaim school sponsorship of noncurricular groups and events in a manner that neither favors nor disfavors groups that meet to engage in prayer or religious speech.

• Express beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written or oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of the submission. Homework and classroom assignments shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the local board of education. A student shall not be penalized or rewarded based on the religious content of the student's work.

(cont.)

97

S.L. 2014-13 (S.B. 370) – Respect for

Student Prayer/Religious Activity (cont.)

Limitations on Students

• A student may be prohibited from engaging in any of these actions, if the actions of the student would do any of the following:

 Infringe on the rights of the school to:

 Maintain order and discipline,

 Prevent disruption of the educational process, and

 Determine educational curriculum and assignments.

 Harass other persons or coerce other students to participate in the activity.

 Otherwise infringe on the rights of other persons.

(cont.)

98


Activity (cont.)

Remedies

 New N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-407.31 provides administrative remedies and cause of action for complaints regarding exercise of religious activity.

 The local board of education may establish or make available an existing formal grievance process to allow students or the parents or guardians of students to present allegations that a right established under Article 29D has been violated by a public school.

The formal grievance process shall include the right of appeal to the local board of education.

 If a local board of education fails to provide a formal grievance process, the following process shall be provided:

 A student or a student's parent or guardian shall state the complaint to the school's principal, who shall meet with the student or the student's parent or guardian, if requested.

 If the student's concerns are not resolved by the meeting with the principal, the student or student's parent or guardian may make a complaint in writing to the superintendent of the local school administrative unit with the specific facts of the alleged violation. The superintendent shall investigate and take appropriate action to ensure the alleged violation of the rights of the student is resolved within 30 days of receiving the written complaint.

 If the superintendent fails to resolve the student's concerns within 30 days, the student or student's parent or guardian may appeal to the local board of education as provided in G.S.

115C-45.

(cont.)

99

S.L. 2014-13 (S.B. 370) – Respect for


Remedies

• If a right of a student established under Article 29D is violated by a public school and the student has exhausted the administrative remedies provided in this section, the student may assert the violation as a cause of action or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain “appropriate relief” against the local board of education. The action shall be brought in the superior court of the county in which the local school administrative unit is located.

• No action may be maintained pursuant to Article 29D unless the student has exhausted the administrative remedies.

• A student prevailing in a claim brought against a local school administrative unit for a violation under Article 29D or any action brought by a public school against a student for conduct covered by Article 29D shall be entitled to

reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs.

• The Attorney General shall intervene and shall provide legal defense of Article

29D in any action which includes claims challenging the constitutionality of

Article 29D.

(cont.)

100


Activity (cont.)

Religious activity for school personnel

 Nothing in Article 29D shall be construed to support, encourage, or permit a teacher, administrator, or other employee of the local board of education to lead,

direct, or encourage any religious or antireligious activity in violation of that portion of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States prohibiting laws respecting an establishment of religion.

 Local boards of education may not prohibit school personnel from participating in religious activities on school grounds that are: initiated by students at reasonable times before or after the instructional day so long as such activities are voluntary for all parties and do not conflict with the responsibilities or assignments of such personnel.

 School employees supervising extracurricular activities, including coaches, may be present while a student or group of students exercises their voluntary right to pray as provided in G.S. 115C-407.30 and, if present, shall not be disrespectful of the student exercise of such rights “and may adopt a respectful posture.”

 Nothing in this section shall prohibit local boards of education from allowing school personnel to participate in other constitutionally permissible religious activities on school grounds.

(cont.)

101

S.L. 2014-13 (S.B. 370) – Respect for


Limits on Article 29D

• This Article shall not be construed to direct any local board of education to take any action in violation of the Constitution of North Carolina or the United States. The specification of rights in this Article shall not be construed to exclude or limit religious liberty or free speech rights otherwise protected by federal, State, or local law.

102

S.L. 2014-88 (H.B. 1195) – Fiscal Integrity/Pension-

Spiking Prevention

Effective Date: 7/30/14, except as noted otherwise

Effective: 1/1/15: Section 1-Establishes a contribution based benefit cap for the Teachers’ and State Employees’ Retirement System (TSERS) and the Local Government Employees’ Retirement System (LGERS). This cap is intended to control the practice of “pension-spiking,” where compensation increases significantly during or right before the four-year period over which compensation is averaged for calculating the benefit.

The cap would not apply to members with an average final compensation less than $100,000, indexed.

• Effective: 1/1/15: Section 2-Allows State and Local Employees who leave before 5 years of service to recoup their pension contributions plus accumulated interest (currently 4%).

• Section 3: Returns vesting period to 5 years. In 2011, the General

Assembly raised the vesting period to 10 years in hopes of saving the State money.

103

BUDGET

PROVISIONS

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) –

Appropriations Act of 2014

104

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) –

Appropriations Act of 2014

• Due by July 1

• Senate passed S.B. 744, version 3 on May 31

• House passed S.B. 744, version 7 on June 13

• Chambers could not agree; Conference Committee appointed June 18 and 19

• After over a month of offers and counter-offers, the

Senate and House finally approved the conference report on August 1 and 2

• Teacher salaries and teacher assistants were major points of contention

• Gov. McCrory signed the budget into law August 7

105

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) –

Appropriations Act of 2014 – Money

Report (cont.)

106

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) –


Report (cont.)

FY 14-15 Budget Adjustments

107

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) –


Report (cont.)


108

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) –


Report (cont.)


109

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) –


Report (cont.)


110

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) –


Report (cont.)

Adjustments

FY 14-15 Budget

111

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) –


Report (cont.)

FY 14-15

Budget

Adjustments

112

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) – Appropriations Act of 2014 – Money Report (cont.)(S.B. 744) –

Appropriations Act of 2014 (cont.)

113

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) – 2014-15

Budget – Teacher Salaries (Sec. 9.1)

• Appropriates $275.5 million (supplemented by $33.9 million in lottery proceeds)

• Average 7% salary increase (including funds previously budgeted for longevity), after weeks of debate between Senate’s 11% and House’s 5%

• Average 5.5% salary increase, when longevity pay is not counted as part of the increase

• Salary increases vary significantly, depending on years of service

• New salary schedule of 6 steps for bachelor teachers:

• 0-4: $33,000

• 5-9: $36,500

• 10-14: $40,000

• 15-19: $43,500

• 20-24: $46,500

• 25+: $50,000

• Separate longevity payments eliminated, except those at current steps 30-36 are grandfathered

• One-time $1,000 bonus for current steps 30-36

• Not tied to elimination of tenure

• Longevity earned in 2013-14 to be paid on prorated basis through 6/30/14

114

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) – 2014-15

Budget – Salary Supplements for Master’s/

Advanced Degrees (Sec. 8.3)

• Restores “M” salary schedule and salary supplements for sixyear and doctoral degree levels for 2014-15 and going forward, for:

• Certified school nurses and instructional support positions for which a master's degree is required for licensure

• Teachers and instructional support personnel who were paid on that salary schedule or received that salary supplement prior to the 2014-15

• Teachers and instructional support personnel who (i) complete a degree at the master's, six-year, or doctoral degree level for which they completed at least one course prior to August 1, 2013, and (ii) would have qualified for the salary supplement pursuant to SBE policy in effect on June

30, 2013

• Provides for a legislative study of Master’s and advanced degree supplements as well as differentiated pay for certain teachers who demonstrate effectiveness or who assume certain responsibilities/assignments

115

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) – 2014-15

Budget – Principal / A.P. Salaries (Sec.

9.11)

• Appropriates $5.8 million

• Principals

• Increases to base salaries on the schedule and experienced-based step increases (average 2% increase)

• Principals no longer receive 1 extra step for every 3 years of experience

(Section 9.11(c))

• Principals reassigned to higher or lower job classifications because they were transferred to schools with larger or smaller numbers of stateallotted teachers will be placed on the salary schedule as if his/her entire career as a principal was at the new job classification. This applies to all transfers on or after July 1, 2014, except for transfers due to LEA mergers, which are exempt for one calendar year following the merger.

(Sec. 9.11(f))

• Assistant Principals

• Experienced-based step increases and salary schedule increases for years 9 and above

• Bonus

• All those employed on July 1, 2014, who do not receive an increase through the provisions above receive one-time bonus of $809 base salary + $191 benefits

($1,000 total)

116

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) – 2014-15

Budget – Central Office (Sec. 9.12) and

Noncertified Personnel (Sec. 9.13)

Salaries

• Appropriates $32.6 million

• One-time bonus of $500 base salary + $118 benefits

($618 total)

• Mirrors Senate position

• (House suggested $65.3 million, with permanent salary increases of $1000)

117

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) – 2014-15

Budget – Retirement System

Contributions

• Appropriates $26,455,623 for LEA personnel

• Senate wanted $21,514,025

• House wanted $35,082,455

• Sets the employer contribution to the retirement system for the 2014-15 fiscal year at 15.21% (was

14.69% in 2013-14) (Sec. 35.13)

• Sets the employer contribution for the State Health

Plan for the 2014-15 fiscal year at $5,378 (was

$5,435 in 2013-14) for non-Medicare eligible employees/retirees and $4,179 (was $4,224 in

2013-14) for Medicare eligible employees/retirees

(Sec. 35.13)

118

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) – 2014-15

Budget – 25% Selection Procedure

• No teacher selection process required, but local boards must design and submit locally designed differentiated teacher pay plans

• Differentiated Teacher Pay Program (Section 8.41)

• Local school boards must submit proposals for locally designed differentiated teacher pay plans by January 15, 2015, to legislative committees

• Proposals can include merit pay and/or bonuses for assignment to certain schools or additional responsibilities

• $1 million in non-recurring funds are appropriated for LEAs to implement through a newly established NC Education Endowment Fund

• No funding to design/submit the plans

• Makes the $500 bonuses for 25% procedure selected teachers a non-recurring budget item

• Senate wanted to immediately require a new 25% 4-year teacher contract selection procedure

• House wanted to eliminate the $500 annual/increasing bonuses for teachers put on 4-year contracts through the

25% procedure

119

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) – 2014-15

Budget – Teacher Career Status

• No guidance or language addressing the tenure law

• Background: judicial decision declared tenure changes in last year’s budget unconstitutional

• Senate wanted to create two different pay scales; one with generous raises for those who gave up tenure, the other retaining the current salaries for those who kept tenure

• House wanted to clarify language and eliminate 2018 date for repealing tenure, but give bonuses to teachers who voluntarily gave up tenure

• So, where do we stand now on the elimination of tenure and the 25% provision?

120

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) – 2014-15

Budget – Teacher Assistants

• Funds TAs in grades K-3

• $105 million recurring cut (reduction of per-ADM dollars)

• $24.8 million of TA funding made non-recurring

• Will be subject to expiration in the 2015-16 fiscal year unless action is taken by lawmakers

• $113.3 million of TA funding now provided by lottery receipts

This will have to be authorized each year by the General Assembly or expire

• Senate wanted to eliminate all funding for grades 2-3

TAs, and reduce per-ADM funding for grades K-1 TAs

• House wanted no change to TA funding

121

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) – 2014-15

Budget – N.C. Education Endowment

Fund (Sec. 8.11)

• Creates fund to supplement teacher compensation

• Monies in fund can only be appropriated by General Assembly

• Only for teacher compensation that is “related directly to improving student academic outcomes”

• Funded by sale of “I Support Teachers” license plates ($10 per plate) and gifts, contributions, NCGA appropriations, and income tax elective contributions on refunds

• Eliminates the “Support Public Schools” specialty license plate

• Would take the sale of approximately 9.6 million new specialty license plates each year to give each N.C. teacher a $1,000 raise

122

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) – 2014-15

Budget – Military Service Credit for

Newly Hired Educators (Sec. 8.12)

• Clarifies eligibility for the educator military service salary credit:

Adds the qualifying condition that the individual must not have been previously employed by a North Carolina public school

123

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) – 2014-15

Budget – NBPTS Supplement for

Instructional Coaches (Sec. 8.21)

• Extends eligibility for National Board for Professional

Teaching Standards (NBPTS) salary supplements to instructional coaches

• “Instructional coaches” classified by DPI

• Must be in a Title I school for at least 70% of work time

124

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) – 2014-

15 Budget – Injury Prevention and

Return-to-Work Programs (Sec.

8.26)

• Requires SBE develop policies that ensure LEAs implement loss prevention and return-to-work programs

• The programs would be based on models adopted by the SBE

• The models are to be designed to reduce the number of injuries resulting in workers’ compensation claims and to ensure injured employees with claims return to work

125

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) – 2014-15

Budget – DPI Response Time (Sec.

8.28)

• Instructs DPI staff to respond to requests for information by local superintendents, charter school officers, or their designees within three business days “whenever practicable”

• Requires DPI to answer requests “reasonably and fully” within 14 business days, “absent extraordinary circumstances”

126

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) – 2014-15

Budget – Anti-Bullying (Sec. 8.32)

• Requires principals to provide at the beginning of each school year the LEA policy prohibiting bullying and harassing behavior, including cyber-bullying, to staff, students, and parents

127

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) – 2014-15

Budget – School Counselors (Sec.

8.33)

• Clarifies that, while school counselors may not be the testing coordinator, they may assist other school personnel with test coordination during the 20% of their work hours that are not direct student services time

128

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) – 2014-15

Budget – Legal Challenges to

Legislative Actions

• (Sec. 17.3A) Allows legislative leaders to hire outside attorneys to represent the General Assembly and supersede the state Attorney General as lead counsel in legal cases challenging the constitutionality of state laws

• (Sec. 18B.16) Creates a new process for any legal case challenging a state law on grounds that it violates the constitution or federal law, requiring the case to be heard by a three-judge panel of superior court judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court

• Prompted by lawsuits challenging the tenure and voucher laws recently passed by the legislature

129

THE END

130

COURT ORDERS - INJUNCTIONS Injunction #1 – The Guilford Case

PANC FALL CONFERENCE

OCTOBER 8, 2014

TEACHER CONTRACT LAW,

INJUNCTIONS, NEW LEGISLATION

AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PERSONNEL

INJUNCTION #1

THE GUILFORD CASE

INJUNCTION #2

THE NCAE CASE

SO……

What happened next?

The New Model Teacher Contract

The New Model Teacher Contract

The New Model Teacher Contract

2014 LEGISLATION

AFFECTING PERSONNEL

IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A COPY OF ANY

PIECE OF LEGISLATION, YOU MAY DO

ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

1.

Go to the General Assembly’s website at:

www.ncga.state.nc.us

or

2. Call “printed bills” at: 919-733-5648.

BUDGET

PROVISIONS

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) –

Appropriations Act of 2014

THE END

Related documents

Products

Support

COURT ORDERS - INJUNCTIONS Injunction #1 – The Guilford Case

PANC FALL CONFERENCE

OCTOBER 8, 2014

TEACHER CONTRACT LAW,

INJUNCTIONS, NEW LEGISLATION

AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PERSONNEL

INJUNCTION #1

THE GUILFORD CASE

INJUNCTION #2

THE NCAE CASE

SO……

What happened next?

The New Model Teacher Contract

The New Model Teacher Contract

The New Model Teacher Contract

2014 LEGISLATION

AFFECTING PERSONNEL

IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A COPY OF ANY

PIECE OF LEGISLATION, YOU MAY DO

ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

1.

Go to the General Assembly’s website at:

www.ncga.state.nc.us

or

2. Call “printed bills” at: 919-733-5648.

BUDGET

PROVISIONS

S.L. 2014-100 (S.B. 744) –

Appropriations Act of 2014

THE END

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib