Lakeland policy committee refines draft RIF procedure, debates scoring, tiebreakers and role of coaching

Lakeland School District policy committee members reviewed a draft reduction-in-force (RIF) procedure and scoring form during a lengthy meeting focused on how the district would determine which certificated positions to eliminate if a financial emergency required layoffs.

Committee members and staff concentrated on three core issues: how evaluation results should be scored and weighted on the RIF form, what counts as tiebreaker criteria (years in the Lakeland District versus total career teaching longevity), and whether extracurricular duties such as coaching, mentoring or after-school program leadership should carry extra weight. They also discussed how alternative authorizations and emergency provisional certificates should be handled and raised concerns about inconsistent principal calibration across buildings.

Why it matters: the committee noted a compressed timeline: if a levy fails the district may need to prepare RIF lists quickly, and those lists will rely on the scoring and eligibility rules the committee sets now. Several speakers said parts of the draft still need clearer language so administrators, staff and affected teachers can understand how points are calculated.

Most of the discussion centered on the evaluation component of the scoring form. The draft shows an evaluation total based on four domains (points possible: 14), with language in the form that multiplication or other arithmetic could change the maximum points. Committee members recommended clarifying the math (for example, whether a score “out of 14” should be multiplied or scaled and how that affects the maximum possible points). Several members urged that the form explicitly state “points possible” and “points earned” rather than rely on symbols.

Members debated whether to treat “proficient” and “distinguished” on the evaluation as separate point categories or to place them on a single combined line so that achieving either threshold would yield the same maximum points on the RIF form. The committee generally favored simplifying that part of the form to reduce subjectivity and the potential for disputes when one building’s principal marks a teacher “distinguished” while another does not.

Tiebreakers provoked extended discussion. One proposal kept district service (years in Lakeland School District) as a tiebreaker category; another argued for recognizing total certified career longevity (years teaching in accredited schools) so long-serving educators who joined the district later would not be disadvantaged. Committee members proposed several practical changes: (a) label clearly whether “years of service” refers to Lakeland-only service or total career service; (b) set ranges or caps rather than allowing unlimited raw-year totals; and (c) add a specific points schedule (for example, points per band of years) so the scoring tool cannot be gamed.

Coaching, advising and volunteer service were debated as possible tiebreaker points. Some members argued these contributions should count because they reduce school operating costs or increase student opportunities; others worried elementary teachers have fewer realistic opportunities to coach and that counting coaching would disadvantage some grade levels. The committee largely favored keeping extracurricular and mentor duties as tiebreaker considerations but recommended limiting the window of time for evidence (for example, participation recorded in the previous five years or “3 of the last 5 years”) to reduce subjectivity and loopholes.

The committee discussed certificate status and hiring categories. Members clarified that alternative authorizations are typically interim, three-year certificates and that emergency provisionals are one-year authorizations; both types are placed on the career ladder once valid. Members agreed those who lack a valid endorsement for the position they hold (for example, teaching out-of-endorsement) would normally be placed into the appropriate pool for comparison, and the draft should state whether alternative/temporary certificates count as full certification for RIF scoring purposes. Several participants asked the draft to specify “active endorsements” only (not inactive ones).

Several staff raised a process concern: principals across buildings have not been uniformly calibrated in applying the evaluation rubric, so last year’s evaluation results could be inconsistent when used in a RIF calculation. Committee members agreed the district needs to calibrate principals and, if possible, align the IPLP/IPLP-derived evaluation results with the RIF scoring rules before the district would be forced to use a preemptive RIF list if a levy fails.

Committee members also emphasized process protections and roles. The draft identifies a leadership-team review (district leadership team together with LEA leadership) before completing RIF-related forms; members asked the draft to clarify who determines the points on certificated forms (the superintendent, assistant superintendent and HR director were discussed as the appropriate parties to determine final points). Members repeatedly noted the board would receive and approve any administrative recommendation but would not be the sole factfinder on individual names; the committee stressed that administrative scoring and recommendations should be documented and defensible to minimize legal risk.

The committee closed by asking staff to clean up language, add explicit definitions (for example, “points possible/points earned,” “years in district,” and the timing windows for extracurricular evidence), and return a revised form. The draft will move from the policy committee to the full board for consideration after those clarifications and calibrations are made.

Ending: Committee members said they hope the policy will never need to be used, but that a clear, defensible and equitable RIF procedure is necessary given the district’s levy-dependent budget timeline. Staff will revise the form to incorporate the committee’s clarifications and will work with principals on calibration before the board takes up the policy.