Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrator Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident presses North Penn SD on administrator staffing and remote-work language; board rebuts
Summary
At the June 2 North Penn SD work session a resident, Jason Laneir of Lansdale, questioned administrator-to-teacher ratios and what he called a four-day work week; board member Mrs. Coin rebutted and quoted the Act 93 agreement language limiting remote work on instructional days.
Jason Laneir of Lansdale used the meeting’s public-comment period to challenge the district’s administrator staffing levels and to question what he described as a four-day work schedule for administrators, saying the practice reduces transparency and may be harming student performance.
"I feel like we're spending a lot of money and getting not the best results for it," Laneir said, citing a drop in district rankings since 2015 and urging the board to allow quicker public engagement rather than deferring concerns to later meetings.
Board member Mrs. Coin directly disputed Laneir’s description of the district’s contract language. "Mr. Laneir, you are wrong. The Act 93 agreement does not say that administrators can work from home one day a week," she said, and read language stating, in part, that remote work "may be authorized" only with approval from supervisors and specified district administrators. She added that instructional administrators are not entitled to work remotely on instructional days, and that in the prior year she personally worked from home on three days that were either summer dates or days when the district was off.
Other board members and administrators added context, noting committee meetings and after-hours work by administrators and pointing to recent in-building events (including an Olympic Day) as evidence of staff presence in schools. The board emphasized that remote-work requests must be approved and that much of administrators’ work occurs outside the district office.
The exchange highlighted two distinct items raised by the commenter: concerns about administrator-to-teacher ratios and concerns about use of flexible work time under the Act 93 agreement. The board’s response focused on correcting the factual claim about the contract’s remote-work provisions and defending administrators’ general level of engagement. No formal board action resulted from the exchange; the superintendent offered to follow up with the commenter after the meeting.
The meeting’s public-comment rules require speakers to state their name and municipality and limit remarks to three minutes; the chair reminded speakers of that rule before and during the exchange.
