Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 3319
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.02 (2026)

Assistant superintendents and other administrators

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
October 3, 2023
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 33 - 135th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A)(1) As used in this section, "other administrator" means any of the following:

(a) Except as provided in division (A)(2) of this section, any employee in a position for which a board of education requires a license designated by rule of the state board of education for being an administrator issued under section 3319.22 of the Revised Code, including a professional pupil services employee or administrative specialist or an equivalent of either one who is not employed as a school counselor and spends less than fifty per cent of the time employed teaching or working with students;

(b) Any nonlicensed employee whose job duties enable such employee to be considered as either a "supervisor" or a "management level employee," as defined in section 4117.01 of the Revised Code;

(c) A business manager appointed under section 3319.03 of the Revised Code.

(2) As used in this section, "other administrator" does not include a superintendent, assistant superintendent, principal, or assistant principal.

(B) The board of education of each school district and the governing board of an educational service center may appoint one or more assistant superintendents and such other administrators as are necessary. An assistant educational service center superintendent or service center supervisor employed on a part-time basis may also be employed by a local board as a teacher. The board of each city, exempted village, and local school district shall employ principals for all high schools and for such other schools as the board designates, and those boards may appoint assistant principals for any school that they designate.

(C) In educational service centers and in city, exempted village, and local school districts, assistant superintendents, principals, assistant principals, and other administrators shall only be employed or reemployed in accordance with nominations of the superintendent, except that a board of education of a school district or the governing board of a service center, by a three-fourths vote of its full membership, may reemploy any assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator whom the superintendent refuses to nominate.

The board of education or governing board shall execute a written contract of employment with each assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, and other administrator it employs or reemploys. The term of such contract shall not exceed three years except that in the case of a person who has been employed as an assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator in the district or center for three years or more, the term of the contract shall be for not more than five years and, unless the superintendent of the district recommends otherwise, not less than two years. If the superintendent so recommends, the term of the contract of a person who has been employed by the district or service center as an assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator for three years or more may be one year, but all subsequent contracts granted such person shall be for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years. When a teacher with continuing service status becomes an assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator with the district or service center with which the teacher holds continuing service status, the teacher retains such status in the teacher's nonadministrative position as provided in sections 3311.77, 3319.08, and 3319.09 of the Revised Code.

A board of education or governing board may reemploy an assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator at any regular or special meeting held during the period beginning on the first day of January of the calendar year immediately preceding the year of expiration of the employment contract and ending on the first day of June of the year the employment contract expires.

Except by mutual agreement of the parties thereto, no assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator shall be transferred during the life of a contract to a position of lesser responsibility. No contract may be terminated by a board except pursuant to section 3319.16 of the Revised Code. No contract may be suspended except pursuant to section 3319.17 or 3319.171 of the Revised Code. The salaries and compensation prescribed by such contracts shall not be reduced by a board unless such reduction is a part of a uniform plan affecting the entire district or center. The contract shall specify the employee's administrative position and duties as included in the job description adopted under division (D) of this section, the salary and other compensation to be paid for performance of duties, the number of days to be worked, the number of days of vacation leave, if any, and any paid holidays in the contractual year.

An assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator is, at the expiration of the current term of employment, deemed reemployed at the same salary plus any increments that may be authorized by the board, unless such employee notifies the board in writing to the contrary on or before the fifteenth day of June, or unless such board, on or before the first day of June of the year in which the contract of employment expires, either reemploys such employee for a succeeding term or gives written notice of its intention not to reemploy the employee. The term of reemployment of a person reemployed under this paragraph shall be one year, except that if such person has been employed by the school district or service center as an assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator for three years or more, the term of reemployment shall be two years.

(D)(1) Each board shall adopt procedures for the evaluation of all assistant superintendents, principals, assistant principals, and other administrators and shall evaluate such employees in accordance with those procedures. The procedures for the evaluation of principals and assistant principals shall be based on principles comparable to the teacher evaluation policy adopted by the board under section 3319.111 of the Revised Code, but shall be tailored to the duties and responsibilities of principals and assistant principals and the environment in which they work. An evaluation based upon procedures adopted under this division shall be considered by the board in deciding whether to renew the contract of employment of an assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator.

(2) The evaluation shall measure each assistant superintendent's, principal's, assistant principal's, and other administrator's effectiveness in performing the duties included in the job description and the evaluation procedures shall provide for, but not be limited to, the following:

(a) Each assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, and other administrator shall be evaluated annually through a written evaluation process.

(b) The evaluation shall be conducted by the superintendent or designee.

(c) In order to provide time to show progress in correcting the deficiencies identified in the evaluation process, the evaluation process shall be completed as follows:

(i) In any school year that the employee's contract of employment is not due to expire, at least one evaluation shall be completed in that year. A written copy of the evaluation shall be provided to the employee no later than the end of the employee's contract year as defined by the employee's annual salary notice.

(ii) In any school year that the employee's contract of employment is due to expire, at least a preliminary evaluation and at least a final evaluation shall be completed in that year. A written copy of the preliminary evaluation shall be provided to the employee at least sixty days prior to any action by the board on the employee's contract of employment. The final evaluation shall indicate the superintendent's intended recommendation to the board regarding a contract of employment for the employee. A written copy of the evaluation shall be provided to the employee at least five days prior to the board's acting to renew or not renew the contract.

(3) Termination of an assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator's contract shall be pursuant to section 3319.16 of the Revised Code. Suspension of any such employee shall be pursuant to section 3319.17 or 3319.171 of the Revised Code.

(4) Before taking action to renew or nonrenew the contract of an assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator under this section and prior to the first day of June of the year in which such employee's contract expires, the board shall notify each such employee of the date that the contract expires and that the employee may request a meeting with the board. Upon request by such an employee, the board shall grant the employee a meeting in executive session. In that meeting, the board shall discuss its reasons for considering renewal or nonrenewal of the contract. The employee shall be permitted to have a representative, chosen by the employee, present at the meeting.

(5) The establishment of an evaluation procedure shall not create an expectancy of continued employment. Nothing in division (D) of this section shall prevent a board from making the final determination regarding the renewal or nonrenewal of the contract of any assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator. However, if a board fails to provide evaluations pursuant to division (D)(2)(c)(i) or (ii) of this section, or if the board fails to provide at the request of the employee a meeting as prescribed in division (D)(4) of this section, the employee automatically shall be reemployed at the same salary plus any increments that may be authorized by the board for a period of one year, except that if the employee has been employed by the district or service center as an assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator for three years or more, the period of reemployment shall be for two years.

(E) On nomination of the superintendent of a service center a governing board may employ supervisors who shall be employed under written contracts of employment for terms not to exceed five years each. Such contracts may be terminated by a governing board pursuant to section 3319.16 of the Revised Code. Any supervisor employed pursuant to this division may terminate the contract of employment at the end of any school year after giving the board at least thirty days' written notice prior to such termination. On the recommendation of the superintendent the contract or contracts of any supervisor employed pursuant to this division may be suspended for the remainder of the term of any such contract pursuant to section 3319.17 or 3319.171 of the Revised Code.

(F) A board may establish vacation leave for any individuals employed under this section. Upon such an individual's separation from employment, a board that has such leave may compensate such an individual at the individual's current rate of pay for all lawfully accrued and unused vacation leave credited at the time of separation, not to exceed the amount accrued within three years before the date of separation. In case of the death of an individual employed under this section, such unused vacation leave as the board would have paid to the individual upon separation under this section shall be paid in accordance with section 2113.04 of the Revised Code, or to the estate.

(G) The board of education of any school district may contract with the governing board of the educational service center from which it otherwise receives services to conduct searches and recruitment of candidates for assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, and other administrator positions authorized under this section.

Last updated September 1, 2023 at 3:17 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2012 Ohio 1484 (Ohio 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2012 Ohio 1484 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 33× “Analysis The Statutory Language {¶ 14} At the outset of our analysis, we begin with the statutory language of R.C. 3319.02, which is a remedial statute that must be construed liberally in favor of school administrators.”
State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 69 Ohio St. 3d 217 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 23× “02(C) provides in part: “An assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator is, at the expiration of his current term of employment, deemed reemployed at the same salary plus any increments that may be authorized by the board of education, unless…”
State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 92 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 25× “intendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator is, at the expiration of his current term of employment, deemed 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO reemployed at the same salary plus any increments that may be authorized by the board of education, unless he notifies the…”
State ex rel. McGinty v. Cleveland City Sch. Dist. Bd., 690 N.E.2d 1273 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 20× “107, the 1987 amendment to R.C. 3319.02, to require an initial contract for 1987-1989 retroactively impairs his preexisting contract for the 1987-1988 school year.”
Fisher v. Wellington Exempted Vill. Schs. Bd. of Educ., 223 F. Supp. 2d 833 (N.D. Ohio 2002). · cites it 36× “R.C. § 3319.02 (emphasis added). Since Plaintiffs three-year contract expired on June 30, 2000, the statute requires that Plaintiff be given written notice of the Board of Education’s intention not to reemploy Plaintiff by March 31, 2000.”
Shoemake v. Mansfield City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 61 F. Supp. 3d 704 (N.D. Ohio 2014). · cites it 14× “The term “other administrators” is defined in Ohio Rev.Code § 3319.02 as follows: “any employee in a position for which a board of education requires a license designated by rule of the department of education for being an administrator issued under section 3319.”
State ex rel. Martines v. Cleveland City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 70 Ohio St. 3d 416 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 17× “Indeed, R.C. 3319.02(C) deems an administrator reemployed by operation of law only if a timely written notice of the board’s intention not to reemploy is not given.”
State ex rel. Smith v. Etheridge, 1992 Ohio 13 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 45× “3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. The State ex rel.”
State ex rel. Chapnick v. East Cleveland City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 755 N.E.2d 883 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 5× “The parties filed motions for summary judgment, and the court of appeals subsequently granted a writ of mandamus to compel the board to issue an “other administrator’s” employment contract to Chapnick pursuant to R.C. 3319.02 and *451 to pay him all back pay and benefits to…”
State ex rel. Brennan v. Vinton Cnty. Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 480 N.E.2d 476 (Ohio 1985). · cites it 8× “The issue before this court is whether R.C. 3319.02, as amended effective October 10, 1980, is applicable to the facts before us.”
State ex rel. McGinty v. Cleveland City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1998 Ohio 471 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 30× “{¶ 2} In 1987, the General Assembly amended R.C. 3319.02 to include certain noncertificated administrators within the definition of “other administrators.”
State ex rel. Donaldson v. Athens City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 68 Ohio St. 3d 145 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 14× “First, did the court of appeals err in finding no dispute as to Donaldson’s administrator status for the purpose of R.C. 3319.02? Second, did the court of appeals err in granting the writ of mandamus on the ground that the board of education did not comply with the notice…”
Show all 50 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.02(A) — 4 cases
State ex rel. Donah v. Windham Exempted Vill. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 687 (Ohio 1994).
State ex rel. Donaldson v. Athens City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 68 Ohio St. 3d 145 (Ohio 1994). “First, did the court of appeals err in finding no dispute as to Donaldson’s administrator status for the purpose of R.C. 3319.02? Second, did the court of appeals err in granting the writ of mandamus on the ground that the board of education did not comply with the notice…”
State ex rel. Donah v. Windham Exempted Vill. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 17 (Ohio 1994).
State ex rel. Donaldson v. Athens City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 495 (Ohio 1994).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.02(A)(1)(a) — 1 case
Shoemake v. Mansfield City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 61 F. Supp. 3d 704 (N.D. Ohio 2014). “The term “other administrators” is defined in Ohio Rev.Code § 3319.02 as follows: “any employee in a position for which a board of education requires a license designated by rule of the department of education for being an administrator issued under section 3319.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.02(A)(1)(b) — 1 case
State ex rel. Couch v. Trimble Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 896 N.E.2d 690 (Ohio 2008).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.02(C) — 27 cases
State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 69 Ohio St. 3d 217 (Ohio 1994). “02(C) provides in part: “An assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator is, at the expiration of his current term of employment, deemed reemployed at the same salary plus any increments that may be authorized by the board of education, unless…”
State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 92 (Ohio 1994). “intendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator is, at the expiration of his current term of employment, deemed 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO reemployed at the same salary plus any increments that may be authorized by the board of education, unless he notifies the…”
Fisher v. Wellington Exempted Vill. Schs. Bd. of Educ., 223 F. Supp. 2d 833 (N.D. Ohio 2002). “R.C. § 3319.02 (emphasis added). Since Plaintiffs three-year contract expired on June 30, 2000, the statute requires that Plaintiff be given written notice of the Board of Education’s intention not to reemploy Plaintiff by March 31, 2000.”
State ex rel. McGinty v. Cleveland City Sch. Dist. Bd., 690 N.E.2d 1273 (Ohio 1998). “107, the 1987 amendment to R.C. 3319.02, to require an initial contract for 1987-1989 retroactively impairs his preexisting contract for the 1987-1988 school year.”
State Ex Rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2012 Ohio 1484 (Ohio 2012). “Analysis The Statutory Language {¶ 14} At the outset of our analysis, we begin with the statutory language of R.C. 3319.02, which is a remedial statute that must be construed liberally in favor of school administrators.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.02(D) — 13 cases
State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 69 Ohio St. 3d 217 (Ohio 1994). “02(C) provides in part: “An assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator is, at the expiration of his current term of employment, deemed reemployed at the same salary plus any increments that may be authorized by the board of education, unless…”
State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 92 (Ohio 1994). “intendent, principal, assistant principal, or other administrator is, at the expiration of his current term of employment, deemed 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO reemployed at the same salary plus any increments that may be authorized by the board of education, unless he notifies the…”
State Ex Rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2012 Ohio 1484 (Ohio 2012). “Analysis The Statutory Language {¶ 14} At the outset of our analysis, we begin with the statutory language of R.C. 3319.02, which is a remedial statute that must be construed liberally in favor of school administrators.”
State ex rel. Martines v. Cleveland City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 70 Ohio St. 3d 416 (Ohio 1994). “Indeed, R.C. 3319.02(C) deems an administrator reemployed by operation of law only if a timely written notice of the board’s intention not to reemploy is not given.”
State ex rel. Smith v. Etheridge, 1992 Ohio 13 (Ohio 1992). “3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. The State ex rel.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.02(D)(2) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2012 Ohio 1484 (Ohio 2012). “Analysis The Statutory Language {¶ 14} At the outset of our analysis, we begin with the statutory language of R.C. 3319.02, which is a remedial statute that must be construed liberally in favor of school administrators.”
State ex rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local Sch., 2011 Ohio 1522 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
State ex rel. Midlam v. Greenville City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 161 Ohio App. 3d 696 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.02(D)(2)(a) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2012 Ohio 1484 (Ohio 2012). “Analysis The Statutory Language {¶ 14} At the outset of our analysis, we begin with the statutory language of R.C. 3319.02, which is a remedial statute that must be construed liberally in favor of school administrators.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.02(D)(2)(c) — 1 case
State ex rel. Midlam v. Greenville City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 161 Ohio App. 3d 696 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.02(D)(2)(c)(i) — 1 case
State ex rel. Midlam v. Greenville City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 161 Ohio App. 3d 696 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.02(D)(2)(c)(ii) — 1 case
State ex rel. Midlam v. Greenville City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 161 Ohio App. 3d 696 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.02(D)(2)(ii) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2012 Ohio 1484 (Ohio 2012). “Analysis The Statutory Language {¶ 14} At the outset of our analysis, we begin with the statutory language of R.C. 3319.02, which is a remedial statute that must be construed liberally in favor of school administrators.”
State ex rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local Sch., 2011 Ohio 1522 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.02(D)(3) — 7 cases
Spitulski v. Bd. of Educ. of the Toledo City Sch. Dist., 2018 Ohio 3984 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State ex rel. Martines v. Cleveland City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 70 Ohio St. 3d 416 (Ohio 1994). “Indeed, R.C. 3319.02(C) deems an administrator reemployed by operation of law only if a timely written notice of the board’s intention not to reemploy is not given.”
Burks v. Dayton Pub. Schs. Bd. of Edn., 2023 Ohio 1227 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
State ex rel. Luckey v. Etheridge, 583 N.E.2d 960 (Ohio 1992).
State ex rel. Ruble v. Switzerland of Ohio Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025 Ohio 1510 (Ohio 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.02(D)(4) — 4 cases
State Ex Rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2012 Ohio 1484 (Ohio 2012). “Analysis The Statutory Language {¶ 14} At the outset of our analysis, we begin with the statutory language of R.C. 3319.02, which is a remedial statute that must be construed liberally in favor of school administrators.”
State ex rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local Sch., 2011 Ohio 1522 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
State ex rel. Ruble v. Switzerland of Ohio Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025 Ohio 1510 (Ohio 2025).
State ex rel. Midlam v. Greenville City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 161 Ohio App. 3d 696 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.02(D)(5) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2012 Ohio 1484 (Ohio 2012). “Analysis The Statutory Language {¶ 14} At the outset of our analysis, we begin with the statutory language of R.C. 3319.02, which is a remedial statute that must be construed liberally in favor of school administrators.”
State ex rel. Carna v. Teays Valley Local Sch., 2011 Ohio 1522 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
State ex rel. Midlam v. Greenville City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 161 Ohio App. 3d 696 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.