March 3, 2016 at 6:00 PM - Bethel Board of Education Policy Committee Meeting

Rationale: 

PA 15-215,  An Act Concerning Various Revisions and Additions to the Education Statutes, requires language identifying that members of the Educator Evaluation Committees, both teacher and administrator, include one member of the Bethel Education Association and Bethel Administrators Association.  We have added the language to reflect that change.  

In reviewing Policy 4115, Certified Evaluation with Dr. Brooks, we felt that much of the language was to detailed, getting into the details of the plan.   As the Board of Education annually approves the plan itself, we are recommending striking the language which reflects the specificity of the plan within the policy. 

In addition, we are eliminating the regulation to the policy.  The regulation is the actual plan itself.  It outlines the way in which we evaluate the certified staff.    

 

Rationale: 

PA 15-215,  An Act Concerning Various Revisions and Additions to the Education Statutes requires the the membership of the Professional Learning Council include a member of the Bethel Education Association and Bethel Administrators Association.  We have added the language to reflect that change.  

In addition, just like the policy regarding Certified Evaluation, Dr. Brooks and I felt that there were several language adjustments required.  The changes are notated in the attached policy (4131).

Please note, Policy 4131 has an Appendix of mandated Professional Learning Topics.  We are recommending eliminating the Appendix, which was more aligned to when the state tracked Continuing Education Units (CEU's) for certification.   

 

 

Rationale:  We recently as a Board of Education reviewed the regulation regarding student records.  In review of our existing policies, we discovered a second policy 5145.15 which specifically relates to Directory Information.   The purpose of the review is to align it to the other regulation.  

Rationale: 

Here is a legal overview of the discussion of copyright provided by Rebecca Santiago our Attorney from Shipman and Goodwin on the issue of Copyright and intellectual property.

I looked into the copyright question that we spoke about yesterday. The general rule is that the creator of an original work is the author and owner of the copyright to the work. “Works for hire,” however, are an important exception to this rule. A “work for hire” is either (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his employment or (2) a work specially commissioned, that fits into any one of nine specially enumerated categories. Under this exception, “the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 201(b).

Connecticut School Law, 8th Addition (2014) states: 

For teachers, the question of whether their employer owns the work that they have created is a tricky issue. The Seventh Circuit has articulated the test regarding when an employer owns a copyright in a work — an employer owns the copyright if: (1) the work meets the requirements for copyrightability; (2) an employee prepared the work; (3) the employee prepared the work within the scope of his/her employment; and (4) the parties have not expressly agreed that the employee will own the copyright to the work in a signed, written agreement. See Foraste v. Brown University, 248 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D. R.I. 2003) (citing Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Assn., 805 F.2d 663 (7th Cir. 1986)). Generally, preparation of a work will be considered “within the scope of employment” if the following factors are present: (1) it is the kind of work the employee is employed to do; (2) it occurs substantially within authorized work hours and space; and (3) it is created, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer. Id.

For an independent contractor who is hired to create a specially commissioned work, the work is a “work for hire” (and therefore the work is owned by the employer) if it falls into one of nine categories. The nine categories are: (1) a contribution to a collective work; (2) a part of a motion picture or audiovisual work; (3) a translation; (4) a supplementary work; (5) a compilation; (6) an instructional text; (7) a test; (8) answer material for a test; and (9) an atlas. In addition, for an independent contractor’s work to be considered a “work for hire,” there must be a written agreement, signed by both parties, that the work will be a “work for hire.”

Thus, for teachers, the general rule is that the school, as their employer, will own the copyright for academic materials they create that fall within the scope of their employment. Examples of such materials include tests, lesson plans and/or a course syllabus for assigned classes. If a teacher creates academic materials outside the scope of his/her employment, however, then the teacher will own the copyright to those materials, unless the work meets the requirements of a “work for hire” for an independent contractor, described above. For example, if a teacher prepares a manual outside the scope of his or her employment to assist students in working with a particular computer program, it is likely that copyright ownership remains with the teacher. See Hays v. Sony Corporation of America, 847 F.2d 412 (7th Cir. 1988).

My colleagues have not seen a policy on copyright - a few mentioned circumstances where teachers were trying to sell lesson plans that were collaboratively written and were told to stop based on the law, not a policy (and the teacher did stop). With regard to policies, my colleagues and I wonder whether teacher unions would claim that such a policy is a change in working conditions and demand bargaining. If SBLR agreed that negotiations were required, such discussion/negotiation would likely permit a policy to be drafted, but the policy would likely be narrow.