RIF Policy Revision

Thursday night, the School Board will act on a revision to the Reduction In Force policy. This revision has been spearheaded by school board attorney, Pat Lacey. Mr. Lacey set about the task of stream-lining the policy, which was difficult to follow. His revisions were mostly successful with one exception.

(3) Any teacher on a plan of improvement shall not have any seniority or recall rights; provided, however, that the superintendent shall review the circumstances surrounding such plan of improvement, including, but not limited to, whether sufficient time has elapsed to allow the teacher to pursue the recommended corrective actions; whether the teacher has diligently pursued the recommended corrective actions; and whether the teacher had been previously placed on a plan of improvement. Based on such review, the superintendent may, in her sole discretion, exempt the teacher from this provision..

This exception deals with teachers on a Plan For Improvement, specifically how they will be treated in case of a Reduction In Force or "Destaffing.". In the original revision (black font), a teacher could theoretically be placed on a Plan For Improvement in February and then RIF'd in April when contracts are issued. Such a teacher would have little or no opportunity to work through the plan to improve the areas of need. At the Dec 11, 2008 school Board meeting I spoke to that point and asked the School Board to revise that section.

The compromise language that Mr. Lacey came up with is noted in red print. In my estimation, the original loophole still exists; however, an affected teacher must now undergo a review by the superintendent who will determine if the teacher should be subject to Exception #3. That is a small layer of protection. In my estimation, the process is still very murky. I would prefer that the whole exception be eliminated since, in my view, a Plan For Improvement is designed as a blueprint for a teacher to follow to improve areas of deficiency. It can also be used to document those deficiencies in building a case for termination. Allowing a teacher who is involved in a plan to improve particular skills seems to me to be counter-intuitive. However, if the Board is insistent setting local precedent by instituting this revised policy, they should go further by defining exactly how long a teacher has to be on a plan before they lose their standing. For example, they could state that a teacher on a plan loses standing in regards to exception # 3 after six months (or whatever they deem to be a reasonable/measurable amount of time) .

Make no mistake, the current revision is an improvement and may end up being what the Board decides to do, which I suppose, is their right.