Michele Pola, Anne Best, Mark Smith, and Chuck Morris represented HISD.
Andy Dewey, Gayle Fallon, and Linda Murray represented HFT. Darilyn Krieger took notes.
CHT was also in attendance.
Meeting called to order at 4:31 P.M with discussion of board item H-6 proposed new board policy and changes in board policy addressing performance appraisals and evaluation of other professional employees, performance-pay and stipends, educator term contracts, required staff development, evaluation of teachers, term contract nonrenewal.
The administration presented the new policy and changes to the meeting. The question was asked by HFT as to who had written the new document the administration of the board itself. Michele stated that “it was written by the board”. HFT asked if they had read state law because this document is in clear violation of the law. Michele stated that it was aligned with the focus of HISD. HFT also pointed out that principal’s evaluations and termination reasons were clearly stated and are held liable for many issues but a teacher can be terminated with only one. The district added using student performance and value-added data to evaluation of educator term contracts. HISD asked who would make this decision. HFT further added that if this data is to be used then every teacher is entitled by state law to know exactly haw the data is obtained including all formulas used to calculate the numbers including the proprietary data, this is the transparency clause of state law. It was pointed out pointed out that the numbers for some grades and subjects are obtained from Stanford10 and not all teachers have those scores. Also the Stanford10 is administered in January so an evaluation would be based on data obtained the previous year. HFT seconded this position. HFT pointed out that this means the creation of two classes of teachers. One subjected to EVAAS data and one not. The administration stated that there are other ways of evaluating teacher performance, but when HFT asked for specific criteria the administration was unable to detail any.
Staff development must be based on student performance. HFT asked if this meant that the SDMC would no longer set staff development. The administration that that this would be a guideline. HFT pointed out that this is a clear violation of state law. HFT pointed out that if the Superintendent’s stated intent of using the five days of staff development for instruction the issue of professional development is a moot point. This is a violation of state law also. Does this not also mean that if your student performance does not meet standard that you would be on a growth plan? Did we not get a promise that no one would be placed on a growth plan solely because of EVAAS data?
HFT asked if the district really planned to develop a district evaluation plan. This means that the administration and a committee of persons must write the plan from every school in the district. Given that HISD has decided to use the state appraisal rather than write our own. The way the state appraisal is written it confines student performance to a limited section that will not statistically effect a teacher’s evaluation. This looks like you are attempting to override the PDAS and modify the results using the EVAAS data with a heavier weight. The administration stated that the district does not intend to violate the law. HFT asked if the lawyers had checked this. If you write an instrument and try to present it as the proposed instrument top down it will not fly.
Term contract renewal added a 34th non-renewal point. HFT pointed out that this issue had already been decided. The ruling is that you cannot non-renew a teacher based solely on student performance. HFT is concerned that this is not only a legal issue but also an ethical and an integrity issue. In October, every teacher in a district got a letter that the EVAAS data would not be used to put anyone on a growth plan. In November, in consultation, the statement was made “to my knowledge I can assure you that Dr. Grier has never made a statement that EVAAS data would be used in that manner” This document lacks integrity. We have been lied to twice. HFT is concerned with the violations of state law and the lack of integrity of the upper administration. HFT asked how the administration goes about fixing the resulting lack of trust. You must follow the PDAS as written or HFT will be forced to take you to court.
CHT asked if there is any further appeal possible for the ASPIRE award after the first challenge has been answered. The administration answered that once a challenge has been responded to there is no further recourse through the district.
There was a discussion about the breakfast in the classroom program. Two questions, on procedure Superintendent Grier wants our kids to start the day with a good breakfast. Long discussion about the procedure which will require an increase in the number of food service personnel, food will be delivered to the classroom by food service personnel, residue will be collected as students finish, the trash will be placed outside the door and the trash will be picked up by the same persons delivering the food. Total time required for breakfast is on average 15-20 minutes. This means about 6-7 days of lost instruction time. This program will start rolling out in the elementary schools on February 2nd. Middle schools will start implementing in September.
HFT asked about paying for fingerprinting of low pay employees, District said no.
Spending of Federal Stimulus Money; HFT asked why it has not been drawn? District has six initiatives being implemented over a two-year program 30, 398,298. 20% for transportation, parental involvement funds, and non-profit campus based homeless children and neglected children, literacy intervention coordinators, literacy intervention specialist, literacy training for teachers through Neihaus and Esperanza, early childhood centers, Renzulli, and Sure score for middle schools, UIL and HUDL, and credit recovery for a total of $89,097,000. How come the district has not drawn down a substantial amount? It started late and funds must be spent before we can draw the funds. Person’s salaries being paid from these programs will last for only two years. Funds for school improvement are in process now. Title II part B is credit recover and graduation coaches total 42,000,000. IDEA funds ARD software, contract services, and preschool 1,960,000. HFT’s concern is that in the past HISD is notorious for leaving money on the table. Chuck Morris stated that he has never known any district headed by Grier to ever leave money on the table. It will not happen again (in HISD).
Calendar for 10-11, instructional days waived for professional development. These days are traded off to have Thanksgiving and Christmas by coming back early. Calendar committee will meet on this. We are required to have 45 hours of professional development and these days were put in to get this for teachers.
Chapter 37 (school safety; principals are being told that removal for persistent conduct is not possible. Chuck Morris stated that he has never heard Dr. Grier state that students cannot be removed for bad behavior. The issue may be CEP and the major issue there is money. Maybe we should be changing our attitude about DAEP. We have special placement for special ed etc. DAEP is not a punishment it should be an educational placement for a student with behavioral issues. We need to be serious about discipline issues and how we address those problems proactively not reactively.
The manner of questioning of employees by investigators is not acceptable. Language has been rude, profane, threatening, and insulting. Chuck Morris said that this is not acceptable behavior. He will check on this tomorrow. HFT stated that the behavior is not professional.
The other problem is with professional standards. There has always been a degree of professional courtesy on scheduling. HFT will provide details of incidents, Chuck Morris will check into this. HFT expressed appreciation for courtesy in checking into the problem.
Meeting adjourned at 6:20
8 years ago
