The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that the Kent City School District Board of Education did not follow state law when it failed to observe a teacher three times before deciding not to renew his contract. The decision requires the district to reinstate Shawn Jones, a 20-year employee who was terminated in 2020 after only two observations.
Justice Jennifer Brunner, writing for the Court majority, stated that the district used an observation model developed by the state board of education, which allowed for observing a “class period” or “class lesson.” However, she emphasized that the district was required to adhere to state law, which mandates actual observation of the teacher teaching. “Our holding that the statutes at issue here require actual observation of the teacher teaching is nothing new,” Justice Brunner wrote, citing a 1994 Supreme Court decision.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Michael P. Donnelly, Melody Stewart, and Joseph T. Deters joined in the opinion. Justice Patrick F. Fischer dissented and would have dismissed the case as having been improvidently accepted.
Jones taught communications technology at Stanton Middle School starting in fall 2019 under a one-year limited contract. In October 2019, he received a three-day unpaid suspension for leaving early on several occasions without notifying administration and failing to fulfill duties on certain days.
In January 2020, Jones missed work without proper notification due to illness but mistakenly scheduled his absence for the wrong day in an automated system. An assistant superintendent then notified him that his contract might not be renewed and placed him on a full cycle of OTES (Ohio Teacher Evaluation System) evaluation.
R.C. 3319.11(E) requires at least three formal observations for teachers under consideration for nonrenewal of their contracts. Jones' first observation occurred in late January 2020 during an in-person class session. Due to pandemic-related disruptions, subsequent evaluations were conducted virtually with agreement from both the school board and teachers’ union.
A second evaluation took place in May through an online class session recorded by Jones. A third observation was scheduled for May 11 but could not proceed as planned because Jones was hospitalized with chest pains and medically excused from work until June 1.
The evaluator attended a remote learning session on May 15 where students discussed their progress on assignments given by Jones; however, Jones was not present during this session. Despite this absence, four days later, before receiving final evaluation feedback, the superintendent recommended nonrenewal of Jones' contract which was approved by the board.
Jones contested this decision arguing procedural non-compliance with state law R.C. 3319.111(E). The common pleas court initially affirmed the board's decision but was later reversed by the Eleventh District Court of Appeals prompting an appeal to Ohio's Supreme Court.
Justice Brunner clarified that courts reviewing such cases are limited to determining procedural errors made by boards rather than evaluating legitimacy behind decisions themselves per state law provisions like R.C .3319 .111(E). The Supreme Court concluded there were no exceptions allowing unobserved evaluations even amid unique challenges posed by COVID-19 pandemic transitions from in-person to remote learning setups back then resulting thusly reinstating Mr.Jones alongwith calculating back pay owed accordingly upon remanding case back down further proceedings via common pleas court henceforth accordingly thereto