Over the years, the Autism Mentor classification seems to have
caused some personnel headaches for administration. For example,
there have been issues of how to determine the two years of working
experience with autistic students. Carr v. Tucker County Bd. of Educ. There have
been issues when a county needs to reduce the total number of
aides, and an aide who is mutli-classified as Aide/Autism Mentor,
is less senior than a regular aide, and the less senior aide is
placed on reduction in force. Taylor v. Pocahontas County Bd. of Educ. The
State Superintendent of Schools has issued interpretations on Autism Mentor personnel
situations. And, the West Virginia Legislature has addressed a
number of issues, including a provision that a county board may
establish positions with itinerant status only within the aide and
autism mentor classification categories and only when the job
duties involve exceptional students. W. Va. Code 18A-4-8(r)
We all know that to qualify as an Autism Mentor, an employee must
be qualified to serve as an Aide II, be physically able to work
with autistic students, have two years of experience working with
autistic students, and have fifteen hours of training in the area
of working with autistic students. West Virginia Department of Education Policy No.
5314.01.
But recently, the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board
issued two decisions that make determining the Autism Mentor
classification even more difficult. In those decisions, you had the
following:
Issue: The board of education had an employee
certified as an autism mentor, but working in the aide
classification in a kindergarten classroom. The employee worked in
a classroom where there happened to be a student with the
exceptionality of autism. That student's IEP did not require an
autism mentor. The position at issue was posted as a classroom
aide, and the employee has never bid on an Autism Mentor
position.
Question: Do you reclassify this employee to the
Autism Mentor title, if that employee previously met all the policy
requirements, and happens to be in a classroom where there is an
autistic student?
In these decisions, Sutton v. Hancock County Bd. of Educ., and Dalesio v. Hancock County Bd. of Educ., the
board of education was directed to reclassify the employees and pay
them at the Autism Mentor paygrade. Although the employees were in
the respective classrooms originally as aides, because there was an
autistic student in each classroom they were working in, regardless
if the students' IEP did not call for an autism aide, the
employees are entitled to the Autism Mentor classification.
Interestingly, the State Superintendent's interpretation referenced above appears to
conflict with these rulings, in that the interpretation discusses
how an aide who had met the qualifications of Autism Mentor, but
had not been "employed" as an Autism Mentor, would not
obtain that classification without applying for and receiving a
"promotion."
These recent decisions make the determining of the Autism Mentor
classification even more difficult, and at this time may require
the personnel offices to review what employees are assigned to what
classrooms, to ensure, among other things, that a more senior
Autism Mentor (or even a more senior aide who is certified as an
Autism Mentor but not working in the classification) are
appropriately assigned and classified. Personnel departments are
encouraged to work closely with special education departments to
ensure that only those aides who have qualified as Autism Mentors
are assigned to work with students having that diagnosis. Because
of these recent rulings, it is likely that any employees who have
met the Autism Mentor qualifications, who are working in classrooms
with autistic children, will be seeking and expecting to be
reclassified. Therefore, it is incumbent on administrators to pay
close attention to where autistic students are assigned and what
employees are expected to work directly with them.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.