Ritter.tea.state.tx.us



TEA DOCKET NO. 061-LH-0211

HOUSTON INDEPENDENT § BEFORE JOHN DONOVAN

SCHOOL DISTRICT, §

Petitioner, §

§

vs. § INDEPENDENT HEARING

§ EXAMINER

§

RICARDO SANTILLAN §

Respondent. § FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

RECOMMENDATION OF INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER

Statement of the Case

Petitioner, Houston Independent School District, (“HISD”), proposes non-renewal of Respondent, Ricardo Santillan’s (“Santillan” or “Respondent”) one-year teacher term contract (“the contract”) pursuant to Section 6 and Section 12 of the contract and Texas Education Code § 21.203(b) and § 21.206(a) on the basis of violations of HISD Board Policy, Sections DFBB (LOCAL). Santillan timely requested a hearing pursuant to Texas Education Code §21.207.

John W. Donovan is the Certified Independent Hearing Examiner (“CHE”) assigned by the Texas Education Agency to preside at the hearing.

HISD is represented by Paul Lamp, Rogers, Morris & Grover, LLP, 5718 Westheimer, Suite 1200, Houston, Texas 77057.

Santillan is represented by Jason Fowell, Tritico & Rainey, L.L.P., 5111 Center Street, Houston, Texas, 77007.

The parties, by written agreement extended the time for recommendation to May 17, 2011, which date does not exceed the 105th day of the date on which the Commissioner of Education received Respondent’s request for assignment of a certified independent hearing examiner.

Findings of Fact

After due consideration of the credible evidence, and matters officially noticed, in my capacity as Certified Independent Hearing Examiner, I make the following Findings of Fact: (citations to evidence are not exhaustive, but are intended to indicate some of the basis for the particular findings of fact.)

1. On or about January 19, 2010, Terry B. Grier, Superintendant of the District informed Santillan of the District’s decision to non-renew his one-year term contract. (HISD Ex. 4);

2. Santillan timely appealed his proposed non-renewal. See Id.

3. Santillan has been teaching at the District since 2002, for approximately nine years. (Tr. Vol. II, 278.)

4. Santillan was employed by the District under a one-year term contract for the 2010-2011 school year. (HISD Ex. 2.)

5. Respondent began teaching in HISD in the 2002-2003 school year at Wharton Elementary School. (Tr. 278: 21-22; 279: 6-7). Respondent is currently a multi-grade reading teacher at DeChaumes Elementary School (“DeChaumes”). (Tr. 21: 15-17). HISD employs Respondent pursuant to the terms of a One-Year Term Contract for the 2010-2011 school year. (HISD Ex. 2).

6. Ms. Sandy Gaw (“Ms. Gaw”) is the principal at DeChaumes. (Tr. 17: 10-16).

7. Respondent received notice of the deficiencies in his instruction as early as the 2008-2009 school year from Ms. Gaw. (HISD Ex. 22; Tr. 163: 12-25; 164: 1-2).

8. Respondent received an Intervention Plan on September 30, 2009. (HISD Ex. 8; Tr. 32:7-24). Respondent did not complete the Intervention Plan for the previous year (2009-2010) because he was out on medical leave. (Tr. 34: 20-24).

9. Respondent received the DeChaumes School Handbook on August 20, 2010. (HISD Ex. 5; Tr. 22: 25; 23: 1-6). Respondent further attended required professional development seminars where Ms. Gaw detailed her expectations with regard to classroom observations and the delivery of instruction to students. (Tr. 25: 11-19).

10. On September 1, 2010, Ms. Gaw gave Respondent a memorandum stating that Respondent did not fulfill the requirements for the 2009-2010 Intervention Plan. (HISD Ex. 7; Tr. 29: 4-9).

11. Ms. Gaw directed Respondent to meet with her on September 3, 2010, to discuss and collaborate on a new Intervention Plan. (HISD Ex. 7; Tr. 30: 1-12).

12. Ms. Gaw gave Respondent an opportunity to provide input into his Intervention Plan on September 28, 2010. (HISD Ex. 11; Tr. 49: 25; 50: 1-4). Respondent refused to offer any input into the instrument. (HISD Ex. 11; Tr. 50: 3-5).

13. Ms. Gaw met with Respondent on September 29, 2010, to discuss his new Intervention Plan. (HISD Ex. 10; Tr. 49: 5-7). The Intervention Plan contained many of the same instructions and requirements from the previous year’s Intervention Plan. (HISD Ex. 8; 10; Tr. 48: 21-25). Respondent refused to sign the Intervention Plan and told Ms. Gaw that he did not need to be placed on an Intervention Plan. (HISD Ex. 10; Tr. 49:11-17).

14. On October 12, 2010, Ms. Gaw directed Respondent in writing to comply with the terms of the Intervention Plan that was provided to Respondent on September 29, 2010. (HISD Ex. 11; Tr. 51: 10-14).

15. Ms. Gaw gave Respondent a memorandum on October 15, 2010, which detailed her observation of Respondent’s classroom on October 8, 2010. (HISD Ex. 12; Tr. 52:4-9). The memorandum supports that that Respondent was not complying with the directive concerning the use of knowledge-based questions as set forth in Respondent’s Intervention Plan. (HISD Ex. 12; Tr. 54: 9-12).

16. Ms. Gaw met with Respondent on October 15, 2010, in order to discuss his progress on the Intervention Plan. (HISD Ex. 13; Tr. 61: 5-9). Respondent failed to follow directives concerning implementation of professional development strategies in his classroom. (HISD Ex. 13; Tr. 64: 14-20). Ms. Gaw again reminded Respondent of the directives in his Intervention Plan. (HISD Ex. 13; Tr. 65: 4-6).

17. Ms. Gaw observed Respondent’s classroom on November 4, 2010. (HISD Ex. 14; Tr. 65: 13-17). Respondent was not complying with the directives in his Intervention Plan concerning the proper use of knowledge-based questions. (Tr. 66: 21-25; 67: 1-4).

18. When Ms. Gaw met with Respondent to discuss her observations and concerns. Respondent did not provide any feedback as to the specific failures to comply with his Intervention Plan as pointed out to him in the memorandum dated November 9, 2010.

19. Ms. Gaw met with Respondent again on November 12, 2010, to discuss Respondent’s progress on his Intervention Plan. (HISD Ex. 15; Tr. 76:14-18). As of that time, Respondent had still failed to follow directives on the Intervention Plan that required Respondent to email Ms. Gaw the minutes from each of Respondent’s meetings, and to answer questions concerning Respondent’s implementation of professional development strategies in the classroom. (HISD Ex. 15; Tr. 76: 17-20; 77: 7-8). Respondent did not argue his compliance with his Intervention Plan in this meeting. (Tr. 77: 2-8). Instead, Respondent continued to tell Ms. Gaw that he did not belong on an Intervention Plan. (Tr. 77: 16-19).

20. Ms. Gaw met with Respondent on December 3, 2010,in an effort to discuss his progress under his Intervention Plan. (HISD Ex. 16; Tr. 78: 25; 79: 1-6). Ms. Gaw told Respondent that she still had not received minutes from their meetings or responses concerning his implementation of professional development strategies in his classroom as directed in Respondent’s Intervention Plan. (HISD Ex. 16; Tr. 79: 6-11).

21. Ms. Gaw observed Respondent’s classroom again on December 6, 2010. (HISD Ex. 16; Tr. 80: 5-7). Respondent was still not in compliance with his Intervention Plan by the time of this observation. (Tr. 81: 13-17).

22. Respondent never provided Ms. Gaw with minutes from their meetings, as directed in the Intervention Plan. (HISD Ex. 23; Tr. 183: 8-14; 200: 6-10; 206: 21-25; 207: 1; 208: 1-18; 222: 9-14). Ms. Gaw never waived these directives from Respondent’s Intervention Plan. (Tr. 208: 1-6).

23. Ms. Gaw directed Respondent to attend a conference for the record to discuss his job performance on December 17, 2010. (HISD Ex. 17; Tr. 96: 21-25; 97: 1-4). Respondent received notice of this conference on December 15, 2010. (HISD Ex. 17; Tr. 96: 12-15). Ms. Gaw detailed her concerns with Respondent’s deficiencies pointed out in observation reports, appraisals, and evaluations, Respondent’s lack of varied instruction techniques, Respondent’s failure to provide meaningful or engaging lessons, Respondent’s inability to effectively manage behavior in his classroom, and Respondent’s insubordination and failure to follow official directives. (HISD Ex. 17). After this conference, Ms. Gaw recommended the nonrenewal of Respondent’s term contract with HISD. (HISD Ex. 17; Tr. 100: 2-9).

24. I find sufficient evidence that there were deficiencies pointed out by HISD Administration in observation reports, appraisals or evaluation, or other communications.

25. I find sufficient evidence that Respondent failed to fulfill [his] duties and responsibilities.

26. I find sufficient evidence that Respondent failed to comply with official directives.

27. I find insufficient evidence that Santillan was incompetent or inefficient in the performance of his duties.

28. I find insufficient evidence that Santillan was unable to maintain discipline in any situation in which he was responsible in the oversight of supervision of students.

29. I find insufficient evidence that Santillan was unable to maintain an effective working relationship or maintain good rapport with parents, the community or colleagues.

30. There is insufficient probative evidence to that significant lack of student progress was attritable to Respondent.

32. Any finding of fact deemed to be a conclusion of law is hereby adopted as such.

Discussion

Even though Santillan is a well educated, experienced and respected teacher, he still is required to follow the terms of his contract and the policies and procedures of Houston Independent School District, his employer.

Mr. Santillan was placed on an intervention plan due to deficiencies pointed out in observations, reports or appraisals, or evaluations. Respondent may have concern as to being placed on a growth plan, but there is evidence that there were deficiencies observed in his classroom teaching environment. Even though Mr. Santillan disagreed with the intervention or growth plan he was obligated to comply with the plan.

As part of his intervention or growth plan was to meet with the content specialist, literacy coach or Principal for bi-weekly support on certain dates. Respondent was to prepare a log of the meetings which would consist of responses to questions, (1) how the professional development training was being implemented in the classroom, and (2) how the professional development training was impacting student achievement. The logs of the meetings and responses to the questions were due to the Principal by email within 48 hours after each scheduled meeting. This was a directive from a superior to Mr. Santillan and he was required to fulfill the duties or responsibilities and failure to do so would be failure to comply with an official directive. Mr. Santillan refused to provide the logs and responses to the inquiries. He was notified on several occasions of this deficiency, but did not comply.

Mr. Santillan indicated that he did not have to respond to the “log” directive because preparing the logs or minutes of the meetings had been verbally waived by the principal or the log questions were inapplicable to his teaching grade level. Respondent is of the opinion the professional development training was for high school or secondary students and therefore inapplicable.

The documentary evidence and the testimony of the principal Ms. Gaw clearly indicates that the preparation and submission of the logs or minutes were not verbally waived by her, and Respondent was reminded about failing to provide the logs on several occasions.

Additionally, had the respondent felt the professional development training was not applicable to his grade level he should have responded indicating as such in the logs submitted to the principal as requested, and explained why it was not being implemented and would not impact student achievement.

His failure to comply with the logs and set forth his opinion constitutes a failure to comply with official directives. and a failure to fulfill his duties

There is insufficient credible and persuasive evidence that Respondent was:

1. incompetent or inefficient in the performance of his duties;

2. was unable to maintain discipline in any situation in which he was responsible in the oversight of supervision of students;

3. he failed to maintain an effective working relationship or maintain good rapport with parents, the community or colleagues; and

4. that a significant lack of student progress was attritable to Respondent.

Because there were deficiencies pointed out in observation reports, appraisals or evaluations, and Respondent was given directives to follow and he failed to follow the directives, without a credible and persuasive reasons, his actions constitute a failure to comply with official directives and a failure to fulfill his duties or responsibilities.

Therefore HISD has sustained it burden for non-renewal of Mr. Santillan’s term contract.

Conclusions of Law

1. Jurisdiction is proper under Texas Education Code Sections 21.201 and 21.207.

2. Houston Independent School District has sustained its burden, by a preponderance of credible evidence, to nonrenew Respondent’s term contract.

3. Any Conclusion of Law which may be deemed in whole or in part as a Findings of Fact is hereby also made a Finding of Fact in support of the recommendation for nonrenewal of term contract.

Recommendation

After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in my capacity as Certified Hearing Examiner, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of Houston Independent School District adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the Administration’s recommendation to nonrenew Ricardo Santillan’s teacher’s term contract.

SIGNED and issued this 16th day of May, 2011.

/ S /

___________________________________________

JOHN W. DONOVAN, CERTIFIED INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been forwarded to all counsel of record via facsimile and regular and/or certified mail on this the 16th day of May, 2010.

Mr. Isabel Longoria Via Email

Texas Education Agency isabel.longoria@tea.state.tx.us

Terry B. Grier, Ed.D., Superintendent Certified Mail – Return Receipt Requested

Houston Independent School District

4400 West 18th Street

Houston, Texas 77092-8501

Mr. Jason Fowell Via Email & U.S. First Class Mail

Tritico, & Rainey, LL.

5111 Center Street

Houston, Texas 77007

Paul A. Lamp Via Email & U.S. First Class Mail

Rogers, Morris & Grover, L.L.P.

5718 Westheimer, Suite 1200

Houston, Texas 77057

/ S /

___________________________________________

John W. Donovan

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download