Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the OE4 Revisions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff presents wide-ranging OE‑4 revisions including turnover, licensure and anti‑retaliation indicators
Summary
Staff presented proposed changes to OE‑4: a new turnover target (annual voluntary turnover ≤10%), indicators to reduce license stipulations/permits, measures to increase highly qualified staff on day one, strengthened recruitment to better reflect student demographics, revised evaluation thresholds (95%/90%), training/onboarding requirements, and anti‑retaliation monitoring.
District staff presented a set of proposed revisions to OE‑4 (the board—s results monitoring framework) at the Governance Committee meeting on Dec. 1.
Dara, the staff presenter, identified several new monitoring points and revised indicators. One new indicator would set an annual target that the district maintain a turnover rate of 10% or less, measured by voluntary resignations. Dara said the district considers turnover a proxy for morale and the alignment of staff with the district—s core values: "the district will maintain an annual turnover rate of 10% or less," she said.
The presentation also recommended replacing prior, unrealistically precise rehiring targets with indicators that track reductions in license stipulations (permits) and increases in the percentage of highly qualified administrators and teachers employed by the first day of student attendance. Another proposed indicator would require that applicants offered employment be interviewed by the appropriate administrator prior to selection.
Staff proposed recruitment indicators to improve staff diversity relative to student demographics, including outreach strategies, partnerships with local colleges and para‑to‑teacher pathways, and annual demographic comparisons of staff and students to monitor progress.
On training and onboarding, staff recommended that all new employees attend orientation and role‑specific training during their first year, that continuing education opportunities align with role goals, and that the district identify mentorships or other mechanisms to address gaps.
Dara proposed revised evaluation thresholds—95% of classroom teachers and building administrators, 90% of district‑level administrators and nonacademic personnel—to replace an earlier 100% target staff said was unattainable given leaves and turnover.
Finally, the packet included a nondiscrimination/retaliation provision: the superintendent may not retaliate against an employee for initiating a legitimate complaint, and HR will monitor allegations and verify that appropriate actions were taken.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about volunteer supervision and background checks; staff said HR runs background checks on volunteers and principals handle daily supervision in buildings. The committee did not take a final vote but asked staff to continue refining the indicators for future committee and board consideration.
