The July 17 Board of Education meeting featured a detailed discussion on supervisor job descriptions, with board members raising concerns about clarity and scope. Wilbur Pan led the conversation, pointing out that certain language had been removed rather than updated, which could create confusion for applicants and staff. The exchange prompted further dialogue among board members and administrators about the need for precise wording to reflect the combined responsibilities of these roles.
Pan began by seeking clarification on the review process for job descriptions, asking whether specific regulations require only one reading. Once confirmed, he turned to the language used in the documents, noting that previous descriptions were more specific. “It appears that the areas these positions would be covering have been deleted as opposed to being updated,” Pan said, referencing the supervisor role for Language Arts, now expanded to include Social Studies. His concern was that without clear guardrails, candidates might assume the position entails duties beyond its intended scope.
Liwu Hong interjected to direct everyone to page eight of the agenda, after which Pan continued to stress the need for precise language. “If we’re combining this position so that we have language arts and social studies, then that language should be updated to reflect both areas,” Pan said, using the budget responsibilities section as an example of where clarity is currently lacking.
Dr. Boley, explained that the changes stem from budget adjustments. “We had eliminated four supervisor positions and combined some responsibilities,” Boley said. “One individual will be overseeing language arts and social studies K-6, and another will oversee grades 7 through 12.”
Assistant Superintendent Bernardo Giuliani supported Pan’s concerns. “Why not add ‘and social studies’ instead of striking language arts entirely?” Giuliani asked. He suggested updating the language throughout the job descriptions, a proposal that was met with agreement.
Hong raised an additional point, questioning whether separating responsibilities by grade level rather than subject might diminish the depth of expertise supervisors bring to their roles. He recommended the policy committee revisit these descriptions in the future, referencing practices in other districts.
Board member Marianne Tanious brought a real-world example into the discussion, citing the district’s EnVision math program. She questioned whether curriculum conversations were happening with the right people if subject-matter expertise was not prioritized. Dr. Valeski and Dr. Boley responded by emphasizing that teachers and supervisors were both involved in the rollout of such programs and that ongoing support is being provided to help supervisors adapt to their expanded responsibilities.
Boley reassured the board and the public that supervisors are not left to navigate these changes on their own. “I meet with each supervisor regularly as a check-in,” she said. “They are listening and learning as they build relationships with the teachers in those departments.”
The exchange concluded with general agreement on the need for greater clarity and a plan to update the job descriptions to reflect the combined roles accurately.
Questions We Should Be Asking Our Board Members
-
Why weren’t these job description concerns addressed before they were brought up during the meeting?
-
How will the district ensure that combining subject areas under one supervisor won’t compromise the quality of education?
-
What steps will be taken to involve curriculum experts and teachers earlier in these discussions?
-
Are there plans to revisit these job descriptions and compare them with successful models from other districts?
-
How will the board monitor and evaluate whether these changes are working for both staff and students?
