Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 3319
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.111 (2026)

Applicability of section; evaluating teachers on limited contracts

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
September 30, 2025
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 96 - 136th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

Notwithstanding section 3319.09 of the Revised Code, this section applies to any person who is employed under a teacher license issued under this chapter, or under a professional or permanent teacher's certificate issued under former section 3319.222 of the Revised Code, and who spends at least fifty per cent of the time employed providing student instruction. However, this section does not apply to any person who is employed as a substitute teacher or as an instructor of adult education.

(A) The board of education of each school district, in consultation with teachers employed by the board, shall update its standards-based teacher evaluation policy to conform with either the framework for evaluation of teachers adopted under section 3319.112 of the Revised Code or a framework created or adopted by the board. The policy shall become operative at the expiration of any collective bargaining agreement covering teachers employed by the board that is in effect on November 2, 2018, and shall be included in any renewal or extension of such an agreement.

(B) When using measures of student performance as evidence in a teacher's evaluation, those measures shall be high-quality student data. The board of education of each school district may use data from the assessments on the list developed under division (B)(2) of section 3319.112 of the Revised Code as high-quality student data.

(C)(1) The board shall conduct an evaluation of each teacher employed by the board at least once each school year, except as provided in division (C)(2) of this section. The evaluation shall be completed by the first day of May and the teacher shall receive a written report of the results of the evaluation by the tenth day of May.

(2)(a) The board may evaluate each teacher who received a rating of accomplished on the teacher's most recent evaluation conducted under this section once every three school years, so long as the teacher submits a self-directed professional growth plan to the evaluator that focuses on specific areas identified in the observations and evaluation and the evaluator determines that the teacher is making progress on that plan.

(b) The board may evaluate each teacher who received a rating of skilled on the teacher's most recent evaluation conducted under this section once every two years, so long as the teacher and evaluator jointly develop a professional growth plan for the teacher that focuses on specific areas identified in the observations and evaluation and the evaluator determines that the teacher is making progress on that plan.

(c) For each teacher who is evaluated pursuant to division (C)(2) of this section, the evaluation shall be completed by the first day of May of the applicable school year, and the teacher shall receive a written report of the results of the evaluation by the tenth day of May of that school year.

(d) The board may elect not to conduct an evaluation of a teacher who meets one of the following requirements:

(i) The teacher was on leave from the school district for fifty per cent or more of the school year, as calculated by the board.

(ii) The teacher has submitted notice of retirement and that notice has been accepted by the board not later than the first day of December of the school year in which the evaluation is otherwise scheduled to be conducted.

(3) In any year that a teacher is not formally evaluated pursuant to division (C) of this section as a result of receiving a rating of accomplished or skilled on the teacher's most recent evaluation, an individual qualified to evaluate a teacher under division (D) of this section shall conduct at least one observation of the teacher and hold at least one conference with the teacher. The conference shall include a discussion of progress on the teacher's professional growth plan.

(D) Each evaluation conducted pursuant to this section shall be conducted by one or more of the following persons who hold a credential established by the state board of education for being an evaluator:

(1) A person who is under contract with the board pursuant to section 3319.01 or 3319.02 of the Revised Code and holds a license designated for being a superintendent, assistant superintendent, or principal issued under section 3319.22 of the Revised Code;

(2) A person who is under contract with the board pursuant to section 3319.02 of the Revised Code and holds a license designated for being a vocational director, administrative specialist, or supervisor in any educational area issued under section 3319.22 of the Revised Code;

(3) A person designated to conduct evaluations under an agreement entered into by the board, including an agreement providing for peer review entered into by the board and representatives of teachers employed by the board;

(4) A person who is employed by an entity contracted by the board to conduct evaluations and who holds a license designated for being a superintendent, assistant superintendent, principal, vocational director, administrative specialist, or supervisor in any educational area issued under section 3319.22 of the Revised Code or is qualified to conduct evaluations.

(E) Notwithstanding division (A)(3) of section 3319.112 of the Revised Code, the board shall require at least three formal observations of each teacher who is under consideration for nonrenewal and with whom the board has entered into a limited contract or an extended limited contract under section 3319.11 of the Revised Code.

(F) The board shall include in its evaluation policy procedures for using the evaluation results for retention and promotion decisions and for removal of poorly performing teachers. Seniority shall not be the basis for a decision to retain a teacher, except when making a decision between teachers who have comparable evaluations.

(G) For purposes of section 3333.0411 of the Revised Code, the board annually shall report to the state board the number of teachers for whom an evaluation was conducted under this section and the number of teachers assigned each rating prescribed under division (B)(1) of section 3319.112 of the Revised Code or the equivalent framework created or adopted by the board, aggregated by the teacher preparation programs from which and the years in which the teachers graduated. The state board shall establish guidelines for reporting the information required by this division. The guidelines shall not permit or require that the name of, or any other personally identifiable information about, any teacher be reported under this division.

(H) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code, the requirements of this section prevail over any conflicting provisions of a collective bargaining agreement entered into on or after November 2, 2018.

Last updated August 8, 2025 at 9:46 AM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 725 (Ohio 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 725 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 26× “The board also claims that its evaluations did comply with R.C. 3319.111. The board contends that R.”
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 721 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 24× “The statute provides, in relevant part: “[T]he court in an appeal under this division is limited to the determination of procedural errors and to ordering the correction of procedural errors and shall have no jurisdiction to order a board to reemploy a teacher, except that the…”
Jones v. Kent City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2023 Ohio 265 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 28× “Jones appealed the decision of the Kent City Board of Education to the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that there was a lack of compliance with evaluation and observation requirements for nonrenewal pursuant to R.C. 3319.111. {¶12} The lower court issued a judgment…”
Jones v. Kent City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2024 Ohio 2844 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 26× “11—R.C. 3319.111—When considering nonrenewal of a teacher’s limited teaching contract under R.”
W. Branch Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. W. Branch Edn. Assn., 2015 Ohio 2753 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 18× “This statute provides that if there is a recommendation from the superintendent that the teacher not be reemployed, and if the evaluation procedures in R.C. 3319.111 have not been followed, then the teacher is deemed -7- reemployed under an extended limited contract for at most…”
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Educ., 638 N.E.2d 79 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 23× “In its memorandum in support of motion for rehearing, appellant says, in part: “The Kelleys Island Board of Education is today taking the unusual step of requesting rehearing because it finds it quite possible that at least one Justice voting with the majority in this 4-3…”
Snyder v. Mendon-Union Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 661 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio 1996). · cites it 13× “2d 725 , paragraph two of the syllabus, that “[ujnless a collective bargaining agreement specifically provides to the contrary, R.C. 3319.111 governs the evaluation of a teacher employed under a limited contract.”
Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 22 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 33× “11(G)(2) requires board of education to provide a clear and substantive basis for its decision not to reemploy teacher—Requirements for adequate hearing pursuant to R.”
Thomas v. Bd. of Educ., 643 N.E.2d 131 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 11× “2d 721 , paragraph two of syllabus (stating that a “proper evaluation under * * * R.C. 3319.111[A] contains all the elements delineated in R.”
Kiel v. Green Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 716 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 5× “In addition, R.C. 3319.11(E) was amended and now provides in part: “Any teacher employed under a limited contract, and not eligible to be considered for a *151 continuing contract, is, at the expiration of such limited contract, considered reemployed * * * unless evaluation…”
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 23 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 35× “The statute provides, in relevant part: "[T]he court in an appeal under this division is limited to the determination of procedural errors and to ordering the correction of procedural errors and shall have no jurisdiction to order a board to reemploy a teacher, except that the…”
Rickel v. Cloverleaf Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 608 N.E.2d 767 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 11× “So long as the requirements expressly set forth by the General Assembly are adhered to, the board’s decision will not be disturbed. Rickel maintains that he was not properly evaluated in accordance with R.”
Show all 51 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.111(8) — 1 case
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Educ., 638 N.E.2d 79 (Ohio 1994). “In its memorandum in support of motion for rehearing, appellant says, in part: “The Kelleys Island Board of Education is today taking the unusual step of requesting rehearing because it finds it quite possible that at least one Justice voting with the majority in this 4-3…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.111(A) — 22 cases
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 721 (Ohio 1994). “The statute provides, in relevant part: “[T]he court in an appeal under this division is limited to the determination of procedural errors and to ordering the correction of procedural errors and shall have no jurisdiction to order a board to reemploy a teacher, except that the…”
Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 725 (Ohio 1994). “The board also claims that its evaluations did comply with R.C. 3319.111. The board contends that R.”
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Educ., 638 N.E.2d 79 (Ohio 1994). “In its memorandum in support of motion for rehearing, appellant says, in part: “The Kelleys Island Board of Education is today taking the unusual step of requesting rehearing because it finds it quite possible that at least one Justice voting with the majority in this 4-3…”
Snyder v. Mendon-Union Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 661 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio 1996). “2d 725 , paragraph two of the syllabus, that “[ujnless a collective bargaining agreement specifically provides to the contrary, R.C. 3319.111 governs the evaluation of a teacher employed under a limited contract.”
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 23 (Ohio 1994). “The statute provides, in relevant part: "[T]he court in an appeal under this division is limited to the determination of procedural errors and to ordering the correction of procedural errors and shall have no jurisdiction to order a board to reemploy a teacher, except that the…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.111(B) — 18 cases
Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 725 (Ohio 1994). “The board also claims that its evaluations did comply with R.C. 3319.111. The board contends that R.”
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 721 (Ohio 1994). “The statute provides, in relevant part: “[T]he court in an appeal under this division is limited to the determination of procedural errors and to ordering the correction of procedural errors and shall have no jurisdiction to order a board to reemploy a teacher, except that the…”
Driver v. Jefferson Twp. Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2012 Ohio 1570 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 22 (Ohio 1994). “11(G)(2) requires board of education to provide a clear and substantive basis for its decision not to reemploy teacher—Requirements for adequate hearing pursuant to R.”
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 23 (Ohio 1994). “The statute provides, in relevant part: "[T]he court in an appeal under this division is limited to the determination of procedural errors and to ordering the correction of procedural errors and shall have no jurisdiction to order a board to reemploy a teacher, except that the…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.111(B)(1) — 1 case
Dove v. Allen Cnty. Educ. Serv. Ctr. Governing Bd., 691 N.E.2d 1127 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.111(B)(2) — 6 cases
Snyder v. Mendon-Union Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 661 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio 1996). “2d 725 , paragraph two of the syllabus, that “[ujnless a collective bargaining agreement specifically provides to the contrary, R.C. 3319.111 governs the evaluation of a teacher employed under a limited contract.”
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 721 (Ohio 1994). “The statute provides, in relevant part: “[T]he court in an appeal under this division is limited to the determination of procedural errors and to ordering the correction of procedural errors and shall have no jurisdiction to order a board to reemploy a teacher, except that the…”
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 23 (Ohio 1994). “The statute provides, in relevant part: "[T]he court in an appeal under this division is limited to the determination of procedural errors and to ordering the correction of procedural errors and shall have no jurisdiction to order a board to reemploy a teacher, except that the…”
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Educ., 638 N.E.2d 79 (Ohio 1994). “In its memorandum in support of motion for rehearing, appellant says, in part: “The Kelleys Island Board of Education is today taking the unusual step of requesting rehearing because it finds it quite possible that at least one Justice voting with the majority in this 4-3…”
Snyder v. Mendon-Union Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1996 Ohio 138 (Ohio 1996).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.111(B)(3) — 10 cases
Thomas v. Bd. of Educ., 643 N.E.2d 131 (Ohio 1994). “2d 721 , paragraph two of syllabus (stating that a “proper evaluation under * * * R.C. 3319.111[A] contains all the elements delineated in R.”
Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 725 (Ohio 1994). “The board also claims that its evaluations did comply with R.C. 3319.111. The board contends that R.”
Rickel v. Cloverleaf Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 608 N.E.2d 767 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). “So long as the requirements expressly set forth by the General Assembly are adhered to, the board’s decision will not be disturbed. Rickel maintains that he was not properly evaluated in accordance with R.”
Geib v. Triway Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 705 N.E.2d 326 (Ohio 1999).
McComb v. Gahanna-Jefferson City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 720 N.E.2d 984 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.111(C)(1) — 2 cases
Gucciardo v. Springfield Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2020 Ohio 5038 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Matola v. Mathews Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025 Ohio 5717 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.111(C)(2) — 1 case
Matola v. Mathews Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025 Ohio 5717 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.111(C)(2)(d)(i) — 1 case
Matola v. Mathews Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025 Ohio 5717 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.111(E) — 6 cases
Jones v. Kent City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2024 Ohio 2844 (Ohio 2024). “11—R.C. 3319.111—When considering nonrenewal of a teacher’s limited teaching contract under R.”
Jones v. Kent City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2024 Ohio 2844 (Ohio 2024).
Jones v. Kent City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2023 Ohio 265 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “Jones appealed the decision of the Kent City Board of Education to the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that there was a lack of compliance with evaluation and observation requirements for nonrenewal pursuant to R.C. 3319.111. {¶12} The lower court issued a judgment…”
Matola v. Mathews Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025 Ohio 5717 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
Gucciardo v. Springfield Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2020 Ohio 5038 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.111(H) — 3 cases
Jones v. Kent City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2023 Ohio 265 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “Jones appealed the decision of the Kent City Board of Education to the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that there was a lack of compliance with evaluation and observation requirements for nonrenewal pursuant to R.C. 3319.111. {¶12} The lower court issued a judgment…”
Jones v. Kent City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2024 Ohio 2844 (Ohio 2024). “11—R.C. 3319.111—When considering nonrenewal of a teacher’s limited teaching contract under R.”
Jones v. Kent City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2024 Ohio 2844 (Ohio 2024).
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.