From: Nicholas Dom To: Alice Burch ; RBemstein_FORW Ce: CWinkle : morrisc_FORW Subject: RE: Personnel Committee Minutes 10-16-14 Date: Sat, Oct 25, 2014 4:59 pm Attachments: OCSTEM.paf(1828K), Personnel Committee Minutes 10-16-14.docx (35K) Please adjust the following: College Guidance Counselor should be College Advisor — the only qualified Guidance Counselor on staff is Deanna Appleton, and her job description as Counselor never delineated the responsibilities of College Guidance. N.E.S.T. is actually the program that Deanna Appleton has created for 6" and 9!" grader mentoring as a result of the time she now has available since recalibrating her job and creating the College Advisory positions for Ashley and Kelly. Ashley and Kelly have nothing to do with N.E.S.T. There is no challenge to seniors’ college choices, rather the College Advisor roles are aimed at supporting seniors so they can expand their perceived options for schools and understanding of the application process, which has not been done in the past. The minutes should also show that the Board Secretary asked how Mr. Dorn expected to be able to pay $6000 to each Yao and Eppcohen, to which Mr. Dom responded that there is enough money to pay Santiago for her work as PD Liaison and SIP Coordinator, two College Advisors, and a new para- professional for the Social Studies Dept. This money is coming from the first 6 mons of the budgeted APC's salary for 2014-2015. Considering that Ashley and Kelly make 3x less that every one of the faculty members in the room, their wage increase is only appropriate for a school that claims to be college preparatory. Money well spent. Ms. Santiago's raise was not mentioned in the meeting. The APC's salary is established at the same level that Shirley Brunache started at $57000. N. Paunovska’s position had to be advertised as open due to her current application for a green card and the school's sponsorship. Gary Meredith and Doug Garber had agreed with N. Paunovska to pay for the advertising and any interviewing costs (already up to $2300). Ideally, N. Paunovska will pay the school back upon being “rehired” for her position — assuming a more qualified candidate is not interviewed. The date seen in terms of the evaluation was 2012-2013 not 2011-2012. It was included on the title page of the DCSTEM document. See attached. The minutes do not capture the part of the discussion in which we reviewed the terms and definitions provided on the evaluation. The criteria sets are important to note. The minutes also do not capture the part of conversation that conveyed a gross miscommunication had transpired between the Board and Executive Director and Interim Principal and Executive Director about the familiarity of the faculty with the model. | have essentially come described to me, and have been busy trying to establish the system in which | must function in order to be appropriately evaluated by domains in a schoo! that lacks many of the very working parts that would allow such an evaluation to be valid. In reality, no true teacher evaluations had taken place last year using the DCSTEM for most of the faculty. Some faculty had claimed that they had never even seen this document before, while others recall being trained in the system in 2013. ‘As a committee, we also discussed the semantic obstacle that the evaluation created because faculty seem to think that “needs improvement’ is a sign of poor work, when by definition and design, the evaluation utilizes the phrase “needs improvement” to denote that the faculty member “engages student in the strategy with no significant errors or omissions”; furthermore, the “need improvement” category is also the “developing” category. The Personnel Committee stated they were familiar with the Marzano model mM