Personnel Services Committee Meeting ~ March 25, 2015

 

PERSONNEL SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES

FOR COMMITTEE ADOPTION

Tuesday, March 25, 2015

Approved by the Committee with no revisions or additions

Committee Members:
Mr. Bill Fox, Chairman, Leesburg District
Mr. Thomas Reed, At Large

I. Review and Approval of the Minutes for February 18, 2015 

Mr. Reed moved the approval of the minutes. They were seconded by Mr. Fox. The minutes were approved 2-0.

II. Public Comment

There was no public comment.
III. Policy 7-6, Classified Employee Dismissal and Demotion Grievance Procedures

 

Dr. Hough explained that school divisions are required by code to have a separate classified grievance process that outlines due process for demotion and dismissal. The proposed policy also contains a second part devoted to general complaints. This follows the structure of the existing Policy 7-4 Procedure for Adjusting Grievances that would apply to licensed personnel.

Mr. Fox asked if there was a significant difference between the policies for classified and licensed personnel. Dr. Hough stated that the classified process is more streamlined and less expensive than the licensed process because teachers have different employment rights. The proposed process would allow classified employees recommended for dismissal or demotion to have an administrative hearing. Appeal rights would include School Board review of the hearing materials.

Mr. Fox asked whether LEA had provided any input on the proposed new policy. Dr. Hough said the policy had not yet been reviewed by LEA.

School Board Attorney Stephen DeVita stated that the precedent for this policy was established in a 1999 court case in Warren County. Mr. DeVita discussed the high cost of conducting a School Board or hearing officer procedure for a teacher who has been dismissed and estimated the cost at $7,000-$20,000.

Mr. Reed asked whether there would be any changes to Policy 7-4 with the adoption of the new policy. Dr. Hough responded that there is an interim version of the policy in place now until VDOE finishes revisions. She said that employee communication tools had been based on the interim policy and that a new version of Policy 7-4 would be brought back when VDOE completes its revisions. Mr. Reed expressed interest in changing the title of Policy 7-4 in order to eliminate confusion for classified employees about which policy to access. Dr. Hough proposed making changes to the communication tools to provide clarity.

 

Mr. Fox asked that the proposed policy be sent to LEA for review prior to the Board vote on the policy.

 

Mr. Reed moved the policy, and Mr. Fox seconded it. The policy was approved 2-0.

IV. Administrative Evaluation Handbook

Dr. Hough stated that evaluation procedures for various job categories are being revised so that they are congruent with the instruments recently adopted for teachers, principals, and the superintendent. Last year, revisions were made to the evaluation templates for other licensed positions besides teachers. These included job categories such as social workers, TRTs, and counselors. This year, a committee was assembled to propose revisions to evaluation templates for administrators besides principals and the superintendent. These included assistant principals, deans, administrative interns, and central office administrators.

Old evaluations for these job categories had five standards and two ratings. The format was narrative with a checklist. The new evaluations contain seven performance standards like the teacher and principal formats. They also contain a four-level rubric and four summative ratings.

 

The assistant principal evaluation now mirrors the principal evaluation with adjustments to the indicators and rubrics. The administrative intern and dean evaluation better reflects their responsibilities than the teacher instrument does. Standard Seven for central office administrators reflects program progress rather than student progress. The new models include a mid-year review for all administrators and goal setting as well. All of the proposed administrative evaluations align with the scoring rubric the School Board adopted for the Superintendent’s evaluation.

 

Mr. Reed asked whether the new instruments had been reviewed by senior staff. Dr. Hough stated that they had been and that senior staff recommended two changes: One was a tweak to goals two and three to make one strategic and one operational, and the other was the use of the same scale as the superintendent’s evaluation.

 

Mr. Fox stated that the new form provided more information for the person being evaluated. He said that he found the four levels to be more useful, practical, and informative.

 

Mr. Reed said that he hoped the new tool would be a good way to record the work of those administrators who go above and beyond.

 

Mr. Reed moved adoption of the handbook, and Mr. Fox seconded it. It was approved 2-0.

 

Mr. Reed inquired about when or if Policy 7-50 would return to the Personnel Services Committee. Mr. Fox said that he would speak with Chairman Hornberger regarding next steps for this policy and would follow up with Dr. Hough regarding agendas.

 

In attendance:

Fox, Bill, School Board Member, Leesburg District

Gross, Julie, Principal, Little River Elementary

Hopson, Larry, Director of Personnel Services - Elementary/Support

Hough, Kim, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Services

Knott, Stephanie, Personnel Specialist - Elementary

Phillips, Scott, Principal, Eagle Ridge Middle School

Reed, Thomas, School Board Member, At Large

Robinson, Elizabeth, Principal, Harper Park Middle School

Styler, Brent, Community Member