Need for Improvement. First, it is important to point out that the relative rates and various studies that have been reported on over the last 2 to 3 years, including the results from the 3rd assessment study to be discussed within this report, continue to show, for the most part, that DMC is due to many factors, such as differential offending, bias, and procedural factors (a parent unwilling to pick-up the child). DMC continues to exist due to differential offending, bias, and procedural or administrative factors (e.g., police referrals especially for minor offenses and domestic assaults, admission of these minor offenses into detention, etc.) Thus, strategies and initiatives need to be implemented with this mind and the areas cited below for improvement attempt to do this. In addition, these have been previously discussed in the first three Equal Protection Compliance Reports and reiterated here again in this fourth Equal Protection Report, and detailed as well as in the Settlement Agreement Coordinator Reports. More specific, consistent findings reveal: While the number of referrals has declined over time, the racial breakdown continues to be high. Likewise, although the overall number of youth held in secure detention has decreased, a racial gap remains and in fact has increased AND race still matters once all other factors are considered. Black youth continue to be underrepresented in diversion. Black youth are overrepresented in cases petitioned and resulting in confinement in secure facilities. Last and although overall numbers appear to have declined, significant overrepresentation of Black youth exist for receiving Notice to Transfer to adult criminal proceedings and actual waiver to adult court. Some of these results can be explained by Black youth representing more serious cases (committing more serious crime, problems at school, etc.) AND bias in the treatment of Black youth AND simply as by-products of existing procedures (unnecessary police referral to court and detention, no one to pick up the youth, aggressive prosecutorial recommendations, etc.). To address these varied but interrelated factors, the following is once again recommended:
Need for Improvement. If a need for improvement is indicated by the evaluator, the evaluator or his/her designee shall provide affirmative assistance in an effort to improve the teacher’s performance. Such assistance shall include, but not be limited to, a demonstration lesson and a supply of the appropriate resource material, if requested. This assistance shall also include release time for the teacher to visit and observe similar classes or activities at his/her own site or at other sites.
Need for Improvement. Non-Provisional Employees
Need for Improvement. If there is a concern regarding an employee’s performance, the supervisor will notify the employee in writing. The employee will be provided a minimum of six weeks or 30 school days within a single school year to demonstrate improvement in the area determined to be unsatisfactory. (District and CSEA representatives will jointly develop an Improvement Plan process and Documentation). Applicable Appraisals forms for Unit Members can be found in the Appendix of the contract.
Need for Improvement. In the event it is determined through the District evaluation procedure that a teacher's work performance or teaching skills require improvement, such teacher will be informed in writing through the evaluation procedure. Should the evaluation identify deficiencies so serious as to affect continued employment, the teacher will be so informed and a specified time will be established between the teacher and the evaluator to affect remedial action. Failure on the part of the teacher to correct such deficiencies may result in termination as determined by the Board.
Need for Improvement. Where an employee’s work continues to be unsatisfactory or the employee’s supervisor continues to identify any other performance-related deficiency(ies) or problem(s), the employee shall be given a written Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) notifying the employee of such problems. The PIP will outline where and how the employee failed to meet standards or requirements and specify the time (at least one month and not to exceed three months) within which the employee must achieve satisfactory performance. If the employee fails to achieve satisfactory job performance at the conclusion of the timeframe set forth in the PIP, IHE may terminate the employee immediately for cause, providing written notification of the reason for termination, or IHE may extend the PIP for one additional period not to exceed 90 days. IHE shall not be required to give any employee more than one PIP during the term of this Agreement. All references to deadlines and frames of time may be waived or extended by mutual agreement.
Need for Improvement. Non-Provisional Employees 2 Should the evaluation process reveal the need for improvement in one (1) or more 3 areas defined by the evaluative criteria, the supervisor and the staff member shall 4 develop a mutually acceptable written plan of support designed to improve the staff 5 member's effectiveness. 6 A plan of support will identify the specific evaluative areas needing growth and the 7 desired performance expectations. Additionally, the plan will provide for periodic 8 performance feedback during that school year. It shall offer a minimum level of support 9 provided and funded by the District, including:
10 A. up to 20 hours of mentoring;
11 B. up to $500 in professional development courses or materials; and
12 C. up to three days of release time to observe or be observed by colleagues.
13 D. Additional supports may be discussed and added by mutual agreement of the staff 14 member and evaluator. 15 No documentation related to the plan of support shall be placed in the staff member’s 16 personnel file.
