Albemarle County School Board Members

c/o Jennifer Johnston, Clerk

401 McIntire Road, Room 345

Charlottesville, VA  22902

RE:      Proposed Reduction in Force Policy Language

Dear Board Members:

As you know, I am a science teacher at Western Albemarle High School and the President of the Albemarle Education Association (“AEA”).  I am writing to you today on behalf of our members, in partial support of Dr. Moran’s recommended policy amendment regarding reductions in force for licensed staff.

As an initial matter, our membership would like to extend our gratitude to the Board members for allowing us additional time to work with Dr. Benson to refine the policy and to educate our colleagues regarding the proposal.  The additional time has proven very beneficial in reducing anxiety and also in allowing us to focus our attention on our primary concern which is caring for and educating our students.

AEA has officially voted in support of the policy amendment with the following exceptions which we hope that the Board will consider prior to adopting the language.  First, we strongly encourage the Board to cap the tier two elements, so that tier two elements can only overcome a limited number of seniority years.  We suggest that tier two elements count for no more than five years of seniority.  In other words, a fifth year teacher with strong tier two elements could be retained in place of a teacher with ten or fewer years in service, but could not (absent exceptional circumstances)[1] displace a teacher with twenty years of service.

We have also received concerns from members at the three high schools, who have indicated that certain after-school positions (which are tier two elements) are assigned in a potentially unfair (biased) manner, which may involve favoritism.  While that issue has been raised in the past, it will likely become a greater issue, when after-school assignments may determine whether a staff member is retained.  We therefore, encourage the School Division to adopt a “clean” process for assignment of extracurricular positions in order to eliminate allegations of unfairness and/or favoritism.[2]

Second, we strongly encourage the School Board to amend the proposed policy language to require that the Division make the RIF analysis on a grade-band basis (as opposed to school based) so that teachers at any individual school are not unfairly/unnecessarily RIF’d.  One could easily conceive of a situation in which an elementary school is required to reduce one position, and in which another elementary school is held harmless.  Moreover, it is very conceivable, that the least valuable/least senior teacher is actually employed at the second elementary rather than the first.  If grade-band analysis were employed, then the least valuable/least senior teacher would be RIF’d; however, if the decision were school-based, then a more favorable teacher would be removed.  That would not benefit the school system, and would greatly distress the staff.  We hope you will agree with our analysis that school-based decisions are neither necessary nor preferable, and instead adopt grade-based (or multiple school-based) analysis.

Finally, we are concerned that the proposed policy language does not specify who will be considered as part of the RIF pool for purposes of the RIF analysis.  We have orally confirmed with Dr. Benson that when a RIF is required in a given school, that all of the teachers in that school will be included in the RIF pool.  In other words, if a 4^th grade position is eliminated at a particular school, the RIF analysis will not only include the 4^th grade teachers, but will include all of the teachers at that school; a 4^th grade teacher may not be the person reduced, even though the position is in the 4^th grade.  We support Dr. Benson’s intent as set forth above, but are concerned that the language is not iterated specifically in the policy.  We encourage the Board to adopt language that specifically requires the foregoing RIF pool analysis.

Again, we greatly appreciate your efforts to include us in the process and to address our concerns.  We hope that you will consider the foregoing comments when making your final decisions.

Respectfully submitted,

The Albemarle Education Association
By:___________________________________

Dr. Wally Adesina, President

cc:        Dr. Pamela Moran, Superintendent

Dr. Bruce Benson, Assistant Superintendent

---

[1] Pursuant to the proposed policy language, the Superintendent has the authority to “protect” up to one percent of the professional staff during a reduction in force.  Therefore in exceptional circumstances, the tier two cap would not apply.

[2] Given the apparent value that the School Division derives from the tier two elements, our members would also like the School Board to consider compensating its employees for those elements.

On the behalf of AEA Margie Shepard had the following information read into public record tonight.

-

March 11, 2010
To: Albemarle County School Board

I am speaking as a teacher, and member of the Albemarle Education
Association, but not for the membership as the Representatives have not met
on the current draft of this policy yet, and we are waiting for VEA legal to
give us their assessment.

The revisions that have been made, with some advice from the Exchange
Committee have improved the RIF policy on several points, but there are
still some areas of concern.
* It seems that, although we may want to discourage ³bumping², when
reductions are made, if we are focused on teachers in our own school, then
there is an advantage to being in a larger school, which would be more
likely to have openings, and a disadvantage to teaching in a small school.
It seems like there would be a way to balance this across grades or
subjects, and still have minimal movement. As it stands, a good teacher with
20 years experience at one school that is downsizing, could lose a job,
while a new teacher at another school might be retained, just because of the
demographics of the school. Some policy guidelines are in order here.
* At the Exchange meeting, we spoke about the need for teachers to be able
to see their ³chart² that included their education, endorsements,
certifications, skills, leadership positions, and to review this on a
regular basis. I see this form as part of the guidelines on page 7, C. 1,
but it does not include information about employee access, or regular
opportunities to update this form.
* We spoke about the continuous vs. non-continuous service issue in that
this may unfairly affect women who stay out a few years with pre-school
teachers. I have looked for mention of that in the revised policy, but
cannot see it.

It might also behoove teachers and school administration if schools clearly
let teachers know what skills, certifications, and even endorsements they
projected would be needed, so teachers would have a better shot of being
current for future positions.

Margie Shepherd

-

Steve Gissendanner also spoke. Summary of those  comments:

1. The additional time to review and communicate the policy has been beneficial.

2. The policy has many strengths and each new draft has addressed the issues the AEA has voiced, and has been an improvement.

3. The single large concern AEA is hearing is that a school based policy unfairly targets teachers at small schools. The policy provision to combine small school RIF plans simply changes who is at most risk of RIF. A grade band system would be more fair. Although this may result in bumping, it should be minimal.

4. AEA will have more input at a later date.

-

The board discussed this policy later in the evening, a few highlight notes below (not exact quotes):

-

Supt.  can proportion RIFing mandates by school and avoid harshly impacting smaller schools.

Barbara Mouly: Are you going to address the fact that there are numbers by the senority piece, but not the tier two items? Are we striking the right balance between teachers that have been with the division for a long time and this newer concern for individual school needs.
Seems to me there would be marked inconsistencies between schools.
No numerical value assigned to anything other than senority, …..what prevents …..
It is not fair to say that senority is the most heavily weighed factor.

Steve Koleszar: Tenure vs. non tenure  – at different schools – is that something that would be considered at the division level? – should we allow bumping in the case of non-continuing contract vs. continuing contract.
Dr. Moran/Dr. Benson – that could be monitored at the division level
Steve Koleszar: I am not sure that is spelled that out.
Mr. Price: spell out the division-wide review

AEA’s Exchange Committee met with Dr. Benson and Dr. Moran  on March 2nd to review the proposed RIF policy. Our concerns were addressed by numerous changes. We continue to review the proposed policy. AEA members should provide feedback to your building representative and to the school board. We expect to address the board on Thursday 3/11, when the policy is on the agenda as an information only item.

-

The proposed policy will be on the agenda at the next Rep. meeting, 3/16.

-

The school board is expected to take action later this month.

AEA’s Exchange Committee met with Dr. Benson and Dr Moran on Tuesday, March 2, in regards to the proposed policy. AEA made a number of suggestions to clarify meaning and make some changes/additions to the policy. AEA was very encouraged with the discussion that took place at this meeting.  We are now waiting for the modified draft, for review, before taking a position on the policy.

There are now  so many facebook pages, websites, and other cyber based movements  set up to support raising revenue for county schools, it is difficult to keep up with them. Continue reading 'County Parents Speak Out For Schools'»

Check out the Blue Ridge Uniserv page for links to news coverage of the Richmond Rally. (Look to the Bogroll on the right)  In addition to local AEA leaders and Albemarle County teachers, local superintendents were in attendance. Dr. Bruce Benson from Albemarle attended, and the Superintendent of  Orange County Schools was a featured speaker.

School Board Work Session on 2/25

-

Early Retirement Incentives will be voted on Monday at a special meeting. Deadline for applications will be March 15th. (Assuming the funding the board believes they can obtain is available, I would guess these incentives are very likely to be offered.)

-

The board invited three groups to the table to discuss the proposed RIF policy. AEA, Teacher Advisory, and Building Level Administrators, all agreed that, if done carefully, the changes can be positive. The board agreed not to move on the new policy until March 25. They asked staff to make sure the board had the proposal ahead of time to give them time to review it. The policy will be on the Board agenda March 11 for discussion and public comment. AEA commented that we have not had time to review the draft policy in any level of detail. Various comments were made by all three groups.  There was extended comments about the degree of objectivity and subjectively in the policy.

-

AEA will have additional comments after we have reviewed the exact language of the policy.  Links to the policy can be found in the recent division wide communication and below. We do anticipate at least some minor changes, and do not have any position on the overall policy until we have reviewed it in detail.

http://schoolcenter.k12albemarle.org/education/sctemp/e79534fdab09110c40cc9c894bfe7444/1267387353/Policy_GCPA_Revision_022410.pdf

AEA received the final draft language on the proposed RIF changes Wednesday morning. This is scheduled to go to the school board on Thursday evening for discussion.

AEA believes this should be tabled for now (not scrapped, just postponed). We have asked that it be tabled and not go before the school board. Our reasoning:

1. This is a distraction from the budget crisis, the current priority.

2. We have not had time to meet and review the policy, something we understood would happen.

2. Although we believe any changes should begin after July 1, even a 30 day delay would be preferable to right now.

4. It has not been effectively communicated out to all staff. Teacher Advisory was apparently charged with soliciting feedback, but many schools are not represented there. Something this big should be communicated out by principals at a faculty meeting.

5. There is no linkage between this and the early retirement program, Early retirement incentives can be done if the Rif changes are done now, 30 days from now, or next year.

Tuesday February 23, 2011

a

The Albemarle Education Association endorses an increase in the county’s real estate tax rate in an amount necessary to fully fund the Superintendent’s 2010-2011 school funding request; according to Governor McDonnell’s proposed budget, that will require an increase of approximately 11 cents per one hundred dollars of assessed value.  Assuming the agreed upon 60/40 split with county government, this will also provide needed monies for other core services such as public safety and transportation.  This additional tax revenue should allow the school system to remain at tier one cuts, limiting layoffs to 40-50 teachers and/or educational support professionals.  AEA believes that failure to fund the school budget will irremediably damage our schools and thus harm our students.

For further information, please contact

David Oberg

Blue Ridge UniServ Director

A Facebook group has been created by an Albemarle resident and educator. Check out and join:

Save Albemarle County Schools..Raise taxes

a

Other sites of interest include:

a

http://www.albemarlegreatschools.org/

a

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=320696692073