Substitute Teacher issues
SIT meeting - October 15, 2012
1) Response to the new champs?
- Looking at an anonymous survey: Are two or three people willing to come up with a 5 question survey and post online? (Downs to help with survey-online) Timetable—end of month?
- Frankie Santoro
- Deb Neal and
- Sherry Worrell will head up the committee
2) The situation with Subs last Friday—subfinder was down.
- We need a system in place to have teachers in planning to cover—a list, an order of rotation?
- Comments
- Maxcy --8th grade decided in past to absorb because it was a morale issue.
- Teachers were generally not in favor of the idea of a “list plan”.
- In extreme cases do the cover plan where subs are not available
- Why don’t we want to use the absorption plan for an entire day?
- In theory the idea of a rotation list is okay, but in practice it is not good most members seemed to indicate.
- Elkins? If we shoot it down, what’s the alternative besides absorption?
- We would always use absorption plan only if it gets up to the threshold of so many extra kids in class
- It is a safety issue if kids are sitting on the floor or in over crowded classes
- Another sentiment--when things are in a pinch in the morning, the system gets abused, no fault of anyone really, that's just how it works.
- Should we change what we are doing as a staff based on one bad experience?
- Deb Neal—people in the office are strategic in their planning of coverage
- Would it help to have criterion of when we use this?
- Professionalism issues (being out on Fridays)? That would be handled by administration, but gets to the morale issue of this topic
- Thorne: If we go ahead and approve it, it will be used more than we think.
- Elkins-only sees it being used if we have multiple teachers out on the same grade level.
- Thorne: The absorption plan’s original intent was to only use when teachers left school for some emergency?
- Elkins: Can we come up with something else other than coverage if too many out to reasonably do absorption plan?
- Encore can’t really cover core teachers
- Davis-King--Encore: "We cover each other"
- If we put it in place and see how it goes, we could vote on it again.
- Turner--Speaking from past—feelings were extremely high about this issue, and that’s why concerns are so high today
- Why is it okay for encore to handle it, but not for core?
- Key Questions we need to consider:
- What is the criterion for the absorption plan? vs coverage plan criterion?
· What is the "cut off" for the absorption plan?
· What are the criterion to use it?
· List of staff to use before core teachers?
Brendan will talk to Gentry and present to her these questions, and hopefully we won’t have another situation like that in the meantime.
Other Agenda items:
- Legging wear is the loop-hole in the dress code especially in 7th and 8th grade—how to address this?
- An addendum in the agenda to cover this?
- Clarify leggings status--fall into the same category as shorts?
- We need to be uniform in terms of how we address this.
- Either a shirt or other coverage must be applied
- Leggings are like under garments
- Holmes—Will this go for staff too?
- Might need to be a personal reminder to some staff too.
- “Cover the valuables” -- dress code according to Elkins
Girl hats: seen in 7th grade…Gentry has said no hats—period. No cutesy berets, etc.
Any other issues from grade levels?
No news is good news.
