One of the questions recently posted on the district’s website is related to staff reductions: If staff reductions happen, how are decisions made on who is laid off? By eliminated or reduced program? By seniority? The district’s answer: Please follow this link to the School Board's regulations on Reduction in Force.
In a nutshell, The School Board’s regulation related to Reduction in Force (RIF) states that the reductions will be made based on seniority.
Section 514.2.
Reduction in Force Generally –
A. Unless otherwise provided for herein, the procedures relating to reduction in force within an active assignment shall be applied separately and independently for employees on continuing contract and for employees on annual contract. Fulltime and parttime employees shall be considered by cumulative service credit and by length of contract.
B. Whenever it is determined that it is necessary to lay off employees in an active assignment,all employees on annual contract shall be laid off before any employees on continuing contract are laid off. Employees on shorter contracts shall be laid off before employees on longer contracts. Length of day shall not be a factor in the designation of length of service.
There is another piece of the regulations that also speaks to the endorsements a teacher holds, but that’s it. There is no RIF based on performance in the classroom.
Interestingly, to be called back to the school district, the district looks at a completely different set of factors, including a teacher’s performance.
Section 514.11
Recall for teachers. Teachers who are laid off shall be placed on a recall list
ranked by a) performance factors that include job knowledge, skill and ability to perform the job as documented in the employee’s three most recent performance evaluations; (b) the employee’s work history in terms of documented disciplinary actions or performance deficiencies as contained in the Human Resources personnel file; and (c) employee’s participation in relevant conferences, workshops, trainings, to improve the employees overall job performance with endorsement area(s) designated for each person.
Personally, I think our students are better off if we begin a RIF with those who do not perform their jobs as well as others. The data and the information is there; it’s used to develop the recall list. If we truly want the best for our students, don’t we want to make sure we have the best teachers in the classroom? And if we’ve got to reduce the force (layoffs) don’t we want to layoff those who are underperformers rather than good performers?
4 comments:
Instead of an RIF the School Board not Dr. Liverman must look at job performance of under performing administrators and teachers and fire them for cause. No longer will seniority mean job security in public sector. Those days were long gone in private business.
This morning Fox News featured a Rhode Island school district where the entire staff of a high school was released because of poor performance. We need individuals like that, think their way around the roadblocks implemented by the school system administrators. Better lawyer up SPS, you're going to need to.
Suggestions to consider bypassing the Liverman permanent employment system include the termination of specific departments, programs, change in job functions, skills required, and loss to outside contracted providers. President Reagan took on the DC establishment firing PATCO, closing the Commerce Department. Surely our lowly School Board could do something if the will is there. Hope someone on City Council is reading this blog.
This school administration will follow the example of former City Manager Herbert to cut those departments and programs that will generate the greatest pain, outrage and response. They will cowardly point their finger towards City Council for angry parents, teachers and SPS employees to rage upon. IS contributors have been warning everyone since it's beginning of the pending storm. I suggest on the eve of the tempest we reef in our sails, lash everything on deck, hold on tight, keep our stern to the weather, a firm grip on the tiller and pray.
Debra,
Good Points all! Suffolk is not the only community strugeling with these issues. By example:
Chesterfield County, Virginia, Downsizing To Combat Dwindling Revenues.
The Chesterfield (VA) Observer (2/25, Pearson) reports, "In the face of dwindling state and local revenues, Chesterfield County will cut programs, lay off employees and reduce services to residents." County Administrator Jay Stegmaier said "he didn't know how many full-time and part-time employees might be laid off, but those whose jobs were in jeopardy have been notified." The article notes, "Much of the funding reduction is occurring from the state. In a two-year period Virginia has cut $84 million from Chesterfield schools and the county government, but in the preceding years the county benefited from increasing funding from Virginia." In order "to spare funding for schools, police and fire/EMS, other county departments are experiencing an average cut of 10.4 percent. Cuts in programs and people are particularly hitting the libraries, parks and recreation and mental health departments."
As as a result, I also strongly believe that if a RIF must be part of the senarios that play out for the Schools Staff and City Staff, as a tax-payer I strongly endorse a process that gives great weight to keeping the "best performers" over just a blanket "time in service" measure.
Roger A. Leonard, MPA
Suffolk...
Post a Comment