Did the School System Follow Policy when they made cuts?
“The duties of the Superintendent include the responsibility to organize, reorganize, and arrange the teachers, administrative and supervisory staffs, and other employees so that it best serves the Dickenson County Public Schools”. From Haydee Robinson’s latest contract
So the school board entrusts the responsibility of determining which personnel should be placed in positions that best suit the needs of the school system and the students. This is a powerful responsibility that the school board completely entrusts to her, so if they are done improperly it is on her and not them.
This is where things get a little jagged when it comes to the recent cuts that were made in the school system. Mrs. Robinson can be quoted in the paper as saying that these cuts were made based on certification, not years of service. Now, if you read the language of the school policy it would seem in the first part of it that non-tenured teachers do not have any rights to a job, they work at the will of the board.
“In the event the Dickenson County School Board must reduce the number of staff members this
regulation may be used in conjunction with normal employee attrition, any approved retirement
incentives and the provisions of section 22.1-304 of the Code of Virginia regarding probationary
teachers. Reductions may result from consolidation of schools, a decrease in enrollment, elimination
and/or cutbacks of programs or subjects, lessening of available local, state, and federal funds, and other similar circumstances.
In the event of such circumstances, it shall be the sole discretion of the Board, upon the
recommendation of the division superintendent, to determine the necessity of a reduction in force of
personnel and program adjustment.
All reductions shall be based on the best interests of the school system for maintenance of a sound and balanced educational program which meets the laws and regulations by which the Board is governed. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the authority of the Board to achieve reductions in its budget by providing appropriate and timely notices to non-tenured staff (specifically including, without limitation, probationary teachers pursuant to section 22.1 – 304 and/or 22.1-305 of the Code of Virginia). Probationary staff and support staff have no legal right or expectation of continuing
employment and the provisions of this policy are inapplicable to such employees. Such staff is
terminable at the will and discretion of the Board. The application of the reduction-in-force policy shall be division wide rather than for individual schools.” – School Board Policy GCPA
Fair enough these teachers do not have a right to file suit for wrongful termination, right? None of the teachers were given a reason for their loss of employment other than budget cuts. If you read further down in the policy it states something different, contradicting the above language.
C. Destaffing Procedures
1. Licensed Teaching Personnel – (See Code of Virginia S22.1-303 and S22.1 – 304)
Destaffing of licensed teaching personnel will be made in the following order without
regard to probationary or contract status:
a. Least senior licensed employees within the endorsement or programmatic area
to be reduced who have received unacceptable summative ratings for the most
recent formal evaluation cycle.
b. If none, the least senior licensed employees within the endorsement or
programmatic area to be reduced who have received developing/needs
improvement summative ratings for the most recent formal evaluation cycle.
c. If none, the least senior licensed employee within the endorsement or
programmatic area to be reduced.
Since these employees were let go based on no other criteria than budget cuts would this not fall under the destaffing guidelines? If so why was the policy not followed?
I have received the licensing info on all staff (should be all, but they may have missed some). Reminder this is all public info- You can pull staff names from DCPS website and get licensing info from Virginia Department of Education website.
If they followed this policy why did multiple provisionally licensed special education teachers remain employed while fully endorsed ones were let go?
Why did a provisionally licensed K-6 teacher keep their job but numerous fully endorsed K-6 teachers lose their positions? Most of which had additional endorsements?
Please explain this to me because by the information I received and reviewed it looks a lot like these were pick and choose choices, which were based on favoritism versus keeping the most qualified teachers. I know there is an exception in the policy for keeping coaches and two of the provisionally licensed teachers were coaches, but come on neither was a varsity head coach and one of the ones let go coached softball.
By what I have received and reviewed these teachers all need to go see what it says in their personnel files about their release, if it says they were let go for budget reasons their rights may have been violated. I am NOT saying they have been, just that they MAY have been.
Now onto the tricky part of what happens next. Since the board voted to terminate their contracts and the superintendent DID NOT apply the rift policy these teachers are not allowed to be hired back without it being advertised and opened to everyone. If I am wrong one of the legal experts on here, please correct me so I can make the needed changes.
I also want to state that this is not an attack on those non tenured teachers that kept their positions, no jobs should have been lost, and waste should have been cut.
Someone needs to ask these questions directly to Mrs. Robinson so we can get a valid answer to why she said in the paper , “these positions were not based on seniority but certification”.
Just in case anyone reading this question the validity of the information, I have included the files that were sent to me below.
