Lakeland District reviews and revises draft reduction-in-force procedures for certified staff

Lakeland District trustees, union representatives and district staff spent a meeting-length discussion reviewing and revising the district’s reduction-in-force (RIF) policy and associated procedures, focusing on the evaluation basis, scoring form and legal limits on how employees may be selected for elimination.

The review centered on clarifying that the board retains sole authority to determine the number of certified employees to eliminate but must base individual selection on documented evaluation information and the district’s scoring form (identified in the discussion as policy 5740f). Participants also debated how to treat different contract categories, how to weight evaluation results versus professional contributions, and whether the procedures adequately protect both employee due process and the district’s administrative needs in emergency scenarios.

Why it matters

The policy governs how Lakeland District would eliminate certified staff positions for reasons such as program changes, declining enrollment or fiscal emergency. Changes to wording and the scoring procedure will determine which teachers are included in RIF pools, how candidates are ranked, and how quickly staff can be recalled if positions reopen.

What the board and staff discussed

- Basis for selection: Participants agreed the decision about which certified employees are subject to a RIF should be based on documented evaluation information, using the district’s evaluation form and the point-scoring procedure under policy 5740f, rather than on seniority or contract category alone. The draft language was edited to say the decision “shall be made based upon the most recently completed written evaluation” and to reference the scoring form in policy 5740f.

- Use of evaluation windows: The group discussed whether evaluations should default to the most recent completed evaluation (commonly the prior school year) if current-year evaluations are not available at the time a midyear emergency is declared. Staff said principals may need to create a current evaluation in some emergencies, but the prevailing direction favored relying on the most recently completed evaluation unless a current evaluation is completed.

- Pools and identification: The HR director will identify certified employees who meet specified criteria (for example, “overall basic” on evaluations or basic scores in any domain/component). District leadership and the Lakeland Education Association (LEA) leadership team are to collaborate with the HR director to identify the pool of employees subject to further scoring.

- Scoring and sequencing: The draft uses a point system to rank employees; the group discussed sequencing cuts starting with the lowest-scoring pool and then, if necessary, scoring larger groups. Board members and staff debated how to group employees for initial screening (overall basic in any domain, then proficient with one or more basic components, etc.) and whether the initial groupings might exclude employees who later would rank lower on the full rubric.

- Weighting concerns: Several participants urged changes so the rubric does not inadvertently disadvantage staff who contribute substantially (leadership roles, extracurriculars, professional contributions) but who may have isolated “basic” component scores. Participants suggested adjusting rubric weights or consolidating pools so comparable employees are ranked together rather than being segregated by a single basic score.

- Contract categories, recalls and school-specific RIFs: The discussion covered category 1/2/3 contract distinctions and renewable contracts. Board members and staff noted state law affects category-one contract endings but that a midyear emergency can create additional procedural complexity. The draft procedures were revised to clarify recall/rehire language and to note the board may declare a financial emergency that, as discussed, generally applies to the next school year unless otherwise specified.

- Collaboration and legal review: Participants referenced prior counsel input and ISBA/Coeur d’Alene model language. The board asked staff to confirm statutory interpretations with district counsel (Amy was cited as legal advisor in the discussion) and to return with clarified wording where legal limits or exposures were uncertain.

Other drafting changes under consideration

- Remove or rework a “3–10 years” longevity bracket that participants said might be misread as giving undue weight to years of service. - Replace the term “highly qualified” (no longer used locally) with current credential language such as endorsements or advanced professional educator (APE) status. - Make professional contributions and extracurricular/coach weighting more equitable across elementary, middle and high school certifications (participants discussed creating a single, district-wide way to score extra duties rather than a high-school–biased coaching list).

Next steps

Staff were directed to revise the draft procedures and the scoring form to reflect the meeting’s clarifications, to remove outdated terminology, and to refine point weights so evaluation and professional contributions are both reflected. The HR director (Brooke) will prepare the staff identification and scoring materials; the district will seek final clarification from legal counsel on statutory limits and on whether district- or school-specific RIFs require additional language. The item will return to the board for further review and formal action at a later meeting.

Ending

The board and staff concluded the review after detailed line edits to the procedures and rubric; staff will circulate a revised draft that incorporates the meeting’s direction and counsel’s clarifications before the board considers formal adoption.