School Board

Personnel Services Committee Meeting ~ April 26, 2010

PERSONNEL SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES

FOR COMMITTEE ADOPTION

Monday, April 26, 2010

Approved by the Committee with no revisions or additions

I. Old Business

Minutes

The committee reviewed the minutes from the Personnel Services Committee meeting held on March 15, 2010. The minutes were approved with no revisions or additions by a vote of 3-0.

II. New Business

De-staffing Panel Discussion

Mr. Marshall reviewed the meeting agenda, stating that this meeting would be the first in a series of meetings for the Personnel Services Committee to explore issues related to de-staffing and a possible proposal of a School Board Policy to guide the placement of de-staffs or the reassignment of staff to schools. He provided guidelines for the panel discussion and requested that Committee Members hold questions until the panel had completed their responses to the four questions that Mr. Marshall would put before the panel for discussion. Panel members included the following participants:

Kathleen Hwang, Principal - Sanders Corner ES
Jackie Brownell, Principal - Kenneth Culbert ES
Sandy Sullivan, President LEA
Rodney Moore, Principal - Stone Hill MS
Margaret Huckaby, Principal - Heritage HS
David Spage, Director of High School Education
Mary Ann Hardebeck, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Services

Mr. Marshall then asked Dr. Hardebeck to summarize the background on destaffing.

Dr. Hardebeck made the following observations:

Typically LCPS has had no more than 60 de-staffs in a school year.
In previous years, most de-staffs were able to be placed via the Round I Transfer. Involuntary de-staffing during this time included approximately 15to 25 teachers each year.
During the 2009-2010 school year there were 269 teachers identified by principals for de-staffing due to the increase in class size, the loss of approximately 79 middle school positions, the reconfiguration of Harmony from a intermediate to a middle school, and the reassignment of approximately 25 special education content area teachers to the regular education ranks.
Unlike past years when there were numerous vacancies, this year there were few vacancies, making it very difficult to ensure that everyone might be placed.
Dr. Hardebeck noted that almost everyone recognizes that the de-staffing process was especially difficult this year, that the process is not a perfect one, and that we are all open to suggestions to improve the process.

Mr. Marshall asked the panel the first question: What works well in current process?

The principals stated the following points:

The current process allows each principal to determine how the needs of currently enrolled students might differ from the needs of students who will be enrolled in the next school year.
The current process allows principals to assess staffing needs and to determine who among the staff will best serve the needs of the students as principals determine how to make staffing decisions.
Principals appreciate the flexibility of being able to look at what the school’s student enrollment is projected to be, the strengths their teachers might bring to meeting the needs of the in-coming students, and how those strengths can be employed to meet the needs of the students by getting the “most bang for the buck.”
The majority of de-staffs occurring at the middle schools came about because of increase in class size, even though enrollment at the middle schools is increasing.
It was helpful at the middle and high school levels to be able to tell staff where their placements would be as the principals notified teachers about their decisions to de-staff them.
Most elementary principals appreciated the clear communication from the Office of Elementary Education as to how many positions the school would have, also communicating those numbers to Personnel.
The de-staffing process worked well at the high school level because of good communication among the principals, their director, and their DPS personnel specialist, even though not all teacher preferences for placement could be immediately met.
Flexibility for the principals “is huge.”
An early timeline is helpful. For example, Sanders Corner experienced de-staffing for the first time in its history as a school. The Principal provided DPS with information about de-staff preferences – being able to work close to home, grade level preference, child care arrangements - to help with placement.
Most de-staffs were placed prior to the budget reconciliation, which helped to determine the impact of any RIFs under consideration by the School Board.

Mr. Marshall asked the second question: What criteria do you use in determining who will be de-staffed from your schools?

The principals provided the following information:

Seniority in my building (outside those in first 3 years of teaching) is usually the first criteria I consider.
It is important to try not to de-staff teachers in the first three years in LCPS because having them with the same principal for their first three years in LCPS allows principals to develop and work with new teachers to the continuing contract status.
At the high school level, student course selections drive the staffing decisions and help determine how many classes and teachers were needed.
Most of the high schools survey their students about what classes they want to take in the following year.
Many of the scheduling decisions are not locked down until late March – so principals approximate their staffing needs until the master schedule is fully developed, which can take place as late as July or August.
Principals take into account teacher certifications as well as eligibility for additional teacher endorsements.
Principals consider the make-up of team teaching groups that work well together.
Principals take into consideration teachers who perform essential roles or duties, such as team leaders, coaches, activity sponsors, department chairs, salts, etc.
Some principals poll staff for volunteers for de-staffing.
Principals consider who might want to work closer to home, program needs, and grade level projections.
Some principals ask teachers as early as the winter break what their intent is for the following year - before the staffing process begins.

Sandy Sullivan, President of LEA and on behalf of LEA, reported the following observations:

It is clear that lots of criteria are used for principals’ determining who will be de-staffed; however, the perspective is different for employees if they don’t know what criteria are being used and don’t have a sense of why things happen as they do. They wonder if the decision is based on something personal.
LEA believes it is important to have some understanding as to how de-staffing occurs and to have a clear process set forward so that employees will understand how decisions are made.
LEA would like to see a written policy, so they can help walk employees through the process.
The next step in developing the policy is to honor the experience of teachers.

Mr. Marshall asked the third question: What challenges do you encounter with the de-staff policy?

Principals shared the following information:

The time frame for notifying elementary teachers was a small window; elementary principals were notified Friday by Dr. Martin about their numbers and told that the names of de-staffs were needed on Tuesday. It was a challenge to act so fast.
Teachers at the elementary level expressed a fear of the unknown as when they were de-staffed, principals did not know at that time where their teachers would be placed.
Teachers at the elementary level express distress when they are told about their de-staffing during the school day; some do want to go back to classroom.
There isn’t a good way (to tell teachers). If as principals we’ve done a good job building a community, the only thing a principal can do in a de-staffing situation is just to be direct and honest. Telling a teacher that it is not the principal’s decision and then having the teacher find out that it is the principal who decides who will stay and who will go is not helpful. Also, being able to tell teachers where they will be placed is somewhat reassuring to the teacher.
Some principals give staff an update on enrollment projections for the coming year in advance of de-staffing. For example, Mr. Moore shared that he knew he was going to lose 8 positions even though Stone Hill would be gaining students. The entire staff was aware that 8 positions would need to be de-staffed prior to the time that de-staffing took place. He was then able to talk informally with teachers about their preferences.
Principals talked about the need to develop a foundation that would reassure teachers that de-staffing decisions weren’t personal but a result of enrollment, class size changes, or programmatic need.
Electives were hit very hard in middle school and it was difficult to find openings for all of those teachers as a result.
To guarantee that we have enough space in the core area subjects, principals may have elective classes with larger numbers. Principals, however, have to determine that safe conditions are in place for students in such classes as Tech Ed. Physical Education, and Art.

Dr. Hardebeck talked about the differences in the de-staffing process at the elementary and secondary levels.

She shared that as in the past all principals were to notify teachers of selection for de-staffing and to inform the teachers affected by de-staffing that DPS would notify them at a later date about their placements.
As the de-staffing began at the elementary schools, it became clear from the elementary principals that this was very hard on the teachers.
Even though the process had already begun with elementary teachers, a temporary halt to de-staffing was called at the middle and high school levels until the majority of de-staffing placements could be made in order for principals to give teachers some information about their placements as principals notified teachers that they were de-staffed.
Nevertheless, some placements had to be delayed until vacancies were identified. It was not possible to find immediate placements for all positions, especially at middle school, in special education, and in such electives as family and consumer science.

Principals went on to describe their experiences in working with teachers through the de-staffing process.

Jackie Brownell talked about the opening of Culbert. She said that almost all of the teachers who opened Culbert had been de-staffed, so they understood the impact that it had. Also, because there had been so much discussion about budget, these teachers had a lot of empathy for their colleagues and were well prepared to support them. They were a good support network and relieved that as a school staff that they were not involved in de-staffing again this year.
It is a positive thing to give teachers plenty of notice and let them know where they are going to be placed. It helps to relieve teacher anxiety.
Margaret Huckaby described the process as “an emotionally draining” one on the people who were de-staffed, the people who remain at their schools, and for administrators.
It is very difficult to hire someone, nurture them, and then lose them. Teachers are nesters – they get into a home and then have to dismantle that; it is a difficult process.
At the high school level, the length of time for determining de-staffs was helpful. Employees had talked with Dr. Hardebeck and Mrs. Ackerman in October about splitting schools and seemed to understand why the changes were being made.
High school principals tend to de-staff in phases – regular education first, then special education (working with Mary Kearney), teacher assistants, librarians, and then guidance counselors (working with Meril Jackson).

Sandy Sullivan:

She said that in representing the teachers, she did not observe the pain that administrators faced.
Ms. Sullivan said that if LCPS had a policy or clear guidelines, it would make employees feel better.
Patsy Layer and Pam Dilbeck have worked with teachers who are going through the de-staffing process –some of these teachers feel confused, targeted, and unsupported by their principals. A policy about de-staffing might ease pain on both sides.

Mr. Marshall asked the fourth question: What would you like to see changed in the de-staff process? Mr. Marshall stated that LEA would like to see de-staffing based on seniority and asked principals to weigh in on that suggestion.

Rodney Moore:

Seniority is important at Stone Hill; however, he wants teachers new to the profession to have a solid foundation and not be the first to be de-staffed from his building.
He said that one of his fears is that a policy won’t take into consideration some things principals know are important in their buildings – SALTS, department chairs, others who perform significant functions.
Seniority is part of the process for him – seniority is usually his first criteria in making decisions within his school except for teachers in their first three years of service in LCPS.

Margaret Huckaby:

Seniority is one of many factors to consider; however, we also have to look at essential roles, certification, highly qualified status, and what the numbers say. In one instance at Heritage, the least senior teacher is the department chair and plays an essential role in the running of the school.
If the rollover of student projections for the next year’s enrollment could occur earlier, principals would have more solid numbers, which would certainly help them to make decisions and would make the de-staffing process less stressful for everyone involved.

*Dr. Hardebeck noted that rollover data comes from Pupil Services.

Dave Spage:

The way we determine student enrollment is based on class size. On average, each high school lost 3.5 to 4 teachers plus two special education content teachers.
He gives principals their staffing numbers and then they go from there.
It became evident early that with three schools being largely affected by the opening of two new high schools, discussions and decisions about de-staffing should be made as soon as possible.
Mr. Spage sat down with principals and their personnel specialist and went line by line, teacher by teacher, asking what will you need in art, tech ed., what would be productive to do and benefit the total high school program, which worked well also from a DPS perspective in that DPS was provided with a great deal of information about the needs of each of the high schools and their teachers.
Electives staffing creates question marks. Although principals didn’t have exact numbers, they were able to make estimates about what would be needed based on historical trends about enrollment in electives.
An earlier rollover of student data would provide principals with data to make more solid predictions about class enrollment. A late rollover date holds up the process.
As a principal, there are essential things you need teachers to do. For example, we push our students to participate in extra- and co-curricular activities and need teachers to sponsor these activities. Those who take an active role in sponsoring activities come into the mix – at all levels, but especially at high school, and especially if de-staffing is as large as it was at Heritage with 25 teachers being de-staffed.
High school principals worked well together, trying to maintain positive a climate. The principals whose schools were most impacted by de-staffing did a good job – Heritage, Valley, County – and spent a lot of time and energy meeting with people, making the process as transparent as possible, and keeping in close touch with Personnel to let Personnel know who the principals had decided to de-staff.

Mr. Marshall suggested that Dr. Mike Martin, Director of Elementary Education, come to a future Personnel Services Committee meeting to describe how he worked with elementary principals through the process.

Mr. Marshall invited questions from the Board members:

Mr. Geurin asked about the timing for elementary de-staffing.
Ms. Hwang explained that as she was out of town on school business at the time the de-staffing process began for elementary schools and the time frame was a very short one for Sanders Corner. When she noted that she needed more time, it was given to her so that she would have more time to discuss her decisions with staff. She shared that even with the extension it was a stressful experience for her and for her staff.
Mr. Reed asked if we might look at de-staffing as a reduction in force (RIF) at a home school. In many cases, it appears that positions were found for all de-staffs, but it also appears to be important to make sure that final decision of who is selected for de-staffing rests with the school and the principal.
Ms. Hwang said that she explained to her staff that de-staffing was not a RIF. She said she emphasized that everyone would have a job placement. She said that last year there were many discussions about a possible RIF due to budget reductions. She said that having DPS come to the schools last year to describe and answer questions about the RIF policy was fresh in her teachers’ minds. She wanted her teachers to understand that the de-staffing process was a different one from the RIF and they would not lose their jobs as a result of being destaffed.
Mr. Reed asked for a clarification of the goal of the Personnel Services Committee’s looking into the de-staffing process.
Mr. Marshall stated that the goal was to decide whether or not to draft a policy with specifics about what is expected of principals as they make decisions about de-staffing or whether there should be specific criteria for de-staffing.
Mr. Marshall said that the Personnel Services Committee would determine what additional meetings would be held to consider de-staffing matters.

Furlough Policy

Dr. Hardebeck introduced the proposed Furlough Policy 7-71.

Policy establishes how a school division will manage a furlough.
The policy will be proposed as an action item at the April 27, 2010 School Board meeting.
Only two school districts have similar policies, Spotsylvania County and Henry County, and follow the format presented in the LCPS proposed policy.

Discussion included the following points:

The possibility of the policy being presented as an information item at the April 27^th School Board meeting
The distinction between a furlough and a reduction in salary
Opportunities for School Board members to present substitute motions regarding the policy at the April 27^th meeting
The suggestion to edit the language of the policy from passive to active voice

After discussion closed on these points, Mr. Marshall proposed a substitute motion – in paragraph 2, “employees may not be required to take more than 2 days in a school year without a 2/3 majority.” This substitute motion passed 2-1, with Marshall and Guerin voting for the motion, and Reed voting against the motion.

Mr. Marshall said he would entertain a motion to move the policy forward for consideration by the full School Board. The vote was 2-1, with Mr. Marshall and Mr. Reed in favor and Mr. Geurin opposed.

The meeting was adjourned.

Attendees:

Jeff Adam, Assistant Principal, Park View High

Jennifer Banasik, Blue Ridge Middle

Jackie Brownell, Principal, Kenneth W. Culbert Elementary

Melinda Carper, Ed.D., Principal, Ball’s Bluff Elementary

Dana Ceccacci, Sanders Corner Elementary

Laura Clairmont, Newton-Lee Elementary

Cheryl Conrad, Blue Ridge Middle

Pam Dilbeck, Loudoun Education Association

Robert Dupree, School Board Member, Dulles District

Irene Ellis, Principal, Hutchison Farm Elementary

Warren Geurin, School Board Member, Sterling District

Sherron Gladden, Principal, Harmony Intermediate

Priscilla Godfrey, School Board Member, Blue Ridge District

Joseph Guzman, Ph.D., School Board Member, Sugarland Run District

Dawn Haddock, Principal, Pinebrook Elementary

Mary Ann Hardebeck, Ed.D., Assistant Superintendent, Personnel Services

Tiffany Hawkins, Sanders Corner Elementary

Larry Hopson, Acting Director, Recruiting and Staffing

Margaret Huckaby, Principal, Heritage High

Kathleen Hwang, Principal, Sanders Corner Elementary

Mary Kearney, Director, Special Education

Tom Marshall, School Board Member, Leesburg District (Chairman)

Andrea Milly, Lovettsville Elementary

Virginia Minshew, Ed.D., Principal, Park View High School

Rodney Moore, Principal, Stone Hill Middle

Bob Ohneiser, School Board Member, Broad Run District

Tom Reed, School Board Member, At Large

Karen Roche, Principal, Aldie Elementary

Bruce Shafferman, Principal, Lowes Island Elementary

John Stephens, School Board Chairman, Potomac District

Sandra Sullivan, President, Loudoun Education Association

Vickie Weagley, Simpson Middle

Paul Webb, Director, Employee Relations

Janet Wise, Harmony Intermediate

Came in late: Dupree, Godfrey