But I have no complaint. The work is satisfying, and as I complete one task I can simply move on the the next. I don't have to do specific tasks over and over again. Too bad the Fayette County Schools Transportation Department managers and supervisors couldn't say that last month.
A February audit of district practices--on the academic side--called for more consistency in evaluation. Had the "diagnostic review" looked at operations, it may well have reported the same problem. Sources within Transportation Department leadership tell KSN&C that a meeting was held with managers and supervisors this spring to review the district's evaluation system. The system is based on a 5-point scale. But at that meeting, according to several who were in attendance, Transportation Director John Kiser directed his staff that "nobody should get over a 3." The supervisors and managers dutifully completed the process as they were instructed.
Meanwhile, in other departments, FCPS staff were being evaluated using the full scale of 5 points. Wanna guess what happened next? Transportation folks suddenly wanted to know why they were the only ones marked down on their evaluations. So much for consistency. Kiser had to obtain an extension on the due date, and all managers and supervisors had to complete a rush job of redoing all of the evaluations they had already done according to instructions, to put their ratings back in line.
In the April 17th bulletin, now titled "Training and Safety," (wasn't it formerly called the We Sheet?) the department explains it this way:
Due to the inflated nature of previous annual evaluations, the district has developed new forms that were designed to more accurately depict grading of individual performance. Unfortunately, the new system caused some people to feel they were being downgraded.Of course they felt that way because that's exactly what was happening. The new system, with Kiser's instructions, was meant to downgrade employees, but the department finds it unfortunate that transportation employees might notice and care? It's apparently those pesky feelings that are the problem.
Nobody wants to be considered average, and in order to correct the feeling that the grades did not accurately depict actual performance; all supervisors have been instructed to review their evaluations and to consider the 3-4 grades as a single "Component" category with the 3 representing the base level and the 4 representing the high end of the category.So, if we understand Kiser correctly, either he just learned that nobody wants to be considered average, or he knew it at the time he instructed his supervisors to downgrade his employees. Apparently, the real problem for Kiser is that anyone would have negative feelings about being downgraded. How should an employee with perfect attendance feel about being downgraded to a 3? The strong implication remains that Kiser doesn't think much of the performance of his staff.
Explanation is needed for any grade 5's. An example would be that perfect attendance would be a 5, no more than 5 absences might be a 4, and more than 10 but less than 12 might be a 3. Many evaluation forms will be redone and new signatures will be requested. Any changes will be a higher number. None of the scores will be lowered. Therefore, there won't be a lot of time for discussion. We have a two-week extension on the completion time in order to accomplish the changes.So shut up and let us get this mess cleaned up. Is it fair to ask how Kiser would feel about his own evaluation? Does he score higher than a 3 in staff relations, and if so, what's the explanation for that?