The interesting thing about these "reductions" is many of them still have rights to positions (certified staff). So an administrator who was previously in the district as a teacher or one that has been in the district for more than four years has rights to a teaching position. The except is if the administrator has a multi-year contract, which usually only applies to a superintendent. So the real questions because how much are they really reducing as many of these people have been in the district for more than four years.
I was wondering about this because one of the PE Teachers laid off was listed as being on sabbatical which would imply that they are probably tenured, no?
One thing I would be wary of, if I was the teachers union, is that the Board likes to make happy promises that they can't keep (see: bessie rhodes, fifth ward school, etc) - so it would be totally on-brand for them to say publicly they won't RIF any tenured teachers and then just do it in a Friday 3pm meeting. And then when there is pushback, they'll act like they just had no idea (see fifth ward school)
The other interesting thing is the state just recently changed the timeline for letting people off, which is today, April 15 (it used to be 45 days before the end of the school year, but because every one's school year ended different the constant date was put in place). So any certified teacher (tenure or not, RIF or dishonorable discharge) has to be let go by today, but to do RIF, there is a seniority order which comes into play (usually outlined in the contract). This becomes an HR nightmare because you have to take into account the various certifications people hold. For example, if they identified they have too many 3rd grade teachers, all of whom are tenured, and one has an English middle school endorsement, they could potentially bump a nontenured Middle school social studies teacher... this is a very simplistic example, but you can see how it becomes a domino situation when looking to RIF. This is why is is often easier to eliminate administrative positions, though the same theory applies.
The district is playing games and not being transparent at all. It's a shame because as the games continue the only ones being hurt are students. Bad leadership.
I hope the Union takes this cause up because my understanding is that the District assured the Union that there would be no tenured teached RIFs and this certainly seems to contradict this, no?
When an educator is faced with dismissal, they can resign voluntarily and HR will treat it as the teacher’s choice to leave, which looks better on their resume. Otherwise they are separated for “cause” which is almost a death sentence for a teacher’s career. RIF’s (reduction in force) usually mean the teacher is separated because of budget issues and not performance. RIF’ed teachers are first to be rehired if and when funds are restored. At least that’s my understanding.
Because public district work independently from each other, there is no such thing as a "do not hire" list between districts. But because enough people know each other the conversation becomes... "off the record" because technically HR and districts cannot say why a person was let go.
Just looked at the layoff list. I don’t like to see someone lose their job, but a Director of Principal Support and Strategy?!! Earning 150k?!?!
What in the world did that position do? Sounds like a Horton creation. There are like, what, 15 principals in the district?!? We need someone to direct and strategize for them?
I hope that job is one they are not going to refill!
Theres a fair number of jobs that never existed before and didn’t even have job recs before they were filled. Example was Horton’s Chief of Staff role (who left to GA with him)
The interesting thing about these "reductions" is many of them still have rights to positions (certified staff). So an administrator who was previously in the district as a teacher or one that has been in the district for more than four years has rights to a teaching position. The except is if the administrator has a multi-year contract, which usually only applies to a superintendent. So the real questions because how much are they really reducing as many of these people have been in the district for more than four years.
I was wondering about this because one of the PE Teachers laid off was listed as being on sabbatical which would imply that they are probably tenured, no?
One thing I would be wary of, if I was the teachers union, is that the Board likes to make happy promises that they can't keep (see: bessie rhodes, fifth ward school, etc) - so it would be totally on-brand for them to say publicly they won't RIF any tenured teachers and then just do it in a Friday 3pm meeting. And then when there is pushback, they'll act like they just had no idea (see fifth ward school)
Sabbatical would mean tenure.
The other interesting thing is the state just recently changed the timeline for letting people off, which is today, April 15 (it used to be 45 days before the end of the school year, but because every one's school year ended different the constant date was put in place). So any certified teacher (tenure or not, RIF or dishonorable discharge) has to be let go by today, but to do RIF, there is a seniority order which comes into play (usually outlined in the contract). This becomes an HR nightmare because you have to take into account the various certifications people hold. For example, if they identified they have too many 3rd grade teachers, all of whom are tenured, and one has an English middle school endorsement, they could potentially bump a nontenured Middle school social studies teacher... this is a very simplistic example, but you can see how it becomes a domino situation when looking to RIF. This is why is is often easier to eliminate administrative positions, though the same theory applies.
The district is playing games and not being transparent at all. It's a shame because as the games continue the only ones being hurt are students. Bad leadership.
I hope the Union takes this cause up because my understanding is that the District assured the Union that there would be no tenured teached RIFs and this certainly seems to contradict this, no?
A contract year double-cross is pretty on brand for this board
"My understanding (I am still researching this) is that more folks were laid off but they were asked to resign first. More to come on this."
That's the go to move for scummy employers to get out of paying unemployment. Which tracks for D65.
When an educator is faced with dismissal, they can resign voluntarily and HR will treat it as the teacher’s choice to leave, which looks better on their resume. Otherwise they are separated for “cause” which is almost a death sentence for a teacher’s career. RIF’s (reduction in force) usually mean the teacher is separated because of budget issues and not performance. RIF’ed teachers are first to be rehired if and when funds are restored. At least that’s my understanding.
They should negotiate to be put on the “do not hire” list. Then you can be a superintendent somewhere !
Because public district work independently from each other, there is no such thing as a "do not hire" list between districts. But because enough people know each other the conversation becomes... "off the record" because technically HR and districts cannot say why a person was let go.
This is definitely the case in the private sector - I'm not totally sure how unemployment works in the public sector.
Thanks so much for the shout out, Tom! Happy Saturday! ☀️
Just looked at the layoff list. I don’t like to see someone lose their job, but a Director of Principal Support and Strategy?!! Earning 150k?!?!
What in the world did that position do? Sounds like a Horton creation. There are like, what, 15 principals in the district?!? We need someone to direct and strategize for them?
I hope that job is one they are not going to refill!
Theres a fair number of jobs that never existed before and didn’t even have job recs before they were filled. Example was Horton’s Chief of Staff role (who left to GA with him)