Ritter.tea.state.tx.us



TEA DOCKET NO. 318-LH-0511

HOUSTON INDEPENDENT § BEFORE THE

SCHOOL DISTRICT §

§ PAULA ROBNETT-THEODORIO

v. § CERTIFIED HEARING EXAMINER

§

JONATHAN DANSBY §

§ STATE OF TEXAS

RECOMMENDATION OF

INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner, Houston Independent School District, (“HISD”), proposes termination of Respondent Jonathan Danbsy (“Dansby”), pursuant to Sections 5 and 6 of Dansby’s continuing teacher’s contract, Section 21.154(4), and Section 21.154 (5) of the Texas Education Code. Section 5 of Dansby’s continuing term contract provides that he may be discharged by the district for one or more of the following reasons:

a) Immorality, [or]

b) Repeated failure to comply with official directives and established school board policy.

Section 6 provides that Dansby “may be released at the end of the school year and his employment terminated at that time, or he may be returned to probationary contract employment without increment for a period not to exceed (3) succeeding school years for any reasons enumerated in section (5) or for:

Section 21.156(a) of the Texas Education Code, also incorporated into Dansby’s continuing contract, that he may be discharged at any time for good cause as determined by the Board of Trustees, good cause being the failure of the teacher to meet the accepted standards of conduct for the profession as generally recognized and applied in similarly situated school districts throughout the State of Texas.

IMMORALITY

HISD Board Policy DH (LOCAL), defines immorality as “conduct which the Board determines is not in conformity with the accepted principles of right and wrong behavior or that the Board determines is contrary to the moral standards which are accepted within the District.”

Specifically, during the 2010-2011 school year it has been alleged that Dansby engaged in “immoral” conduct based on the following:

• Telling a student to “shut the fuck up”;

• Telling a student, You don’t know anything and you look retarded.”

• Telling a student, “Your mom is a bad mother, doesn’t know how to raise you, and probably doesn’t care about you.”

• Calling a student “a little bitch.”

• Stating, when the assistant principal found a girl asleep in class and nudging her to wake her up, “It took us so long to make her fall asleep, why did you wake her?”

• Not allowing a student to go to the restroom who had purportedly gotten him into trouble and saying, “Now I am going to make you suffer.”

• Making the unfounded claim that he had no computer access.

• When a student who had been put out in the hall attempted to re-enter his classroom without permission, putting his “hand on her breast and face and pushing her out of the room.”

• When walking out of the school building after being placed on administrative leave pending investigation of the pushing incident, stating to an assistant principal, “I can’t believe it took Deady and HISD ten years and six principals to get rid of me.”

• Calling a student pretty and that you liked the way she dressed. The student reported being scared and uncomfortable.

Paula Robnett-Theodorio is the Certified Independent Hearing Examiner assigned by the Texas Education Agency to preside at the hearing. HISD is represented by Cory Rush and Paul Lamp of Rogers, Morris & Grove, L.L.P., Houston, Texas. Mr. Dansby is represented by Mark Robinett of Brim, Arnett, Robinett, Conners & McCormick, PC of Austin, Texas.

The parties, by written agreement waived the 45-day recommendation deadline. Upon review of the Record, the evidence before the Examiner, and the applicable law, the Hearing Examiner makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

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. Jon Dansby is employed by Houston Independent School District pursuant to a continuing contract. (HISD Exhibit 2\

2. Mr. Dansby has been employed twice by HISD since 1969 (Transcript, 542: 15-17), and continuously since 1986 (Tr., 543: 1-5) . He is currently a teacher at Deady Middle School.

3. The Board of Trustees of Houston Independent School District gave written

notice to Mr. Dansby that the superintendent had recommended that his contract be terminated during the term of his contract. (HISD Exh. 1.)

4. Mr. Dansby requested a hearing concerning this matter and the appointment of an independent hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 21, Subchapter F of the Education Code. A hearing was held on July 29-30, 2011.

5. Michael Alvarez is the principal at Deady. (Tr. 251: 21-24). The 2010-2011 school year was Mr. Alvarez’ first year as principal at Deady and in HISD. (Tr. 251: 25; 252: 1-2).

6. Gerardo Leal was the sixth grade assistant principal at Deady in the 2010-2011 school year. (Tr. 142: 5-8). HISD has employed Mr. Leal for nine years. (Tr. 142: 16-17).

7. Sylvia Wilson has been an assistant principal at Deady for seventeen years. (Tr. 314: 20-25; 315: 1-4). HISD has employed Ms. Wilson for twenty-three years in various teaching, counseling, and administrative positions. (Tr. 315: 5-11).

8. Ashley Tucker was an assistant principal at Deady Middle School in the 2010-2011 school year. (Tr. 109: 13-18).

9. Jose Espinoza is a School Improvement Officer (“SIO”) supervisor is Dr. Dallas Dance, the Chief School Officer for HISD’s middle schools. (Tr. 255: 21-25; 256: 1-6). Mr. Espinoza is Mr. Alvarez’s direct supervisor in HISD. (Tr. 256: 5-9).

Allegations of Immorality

HISD has alleged that Dansby has engaged in immoral conduct. HISD Board Policy DH (LOCAL), defines immorality as “conduct which the Board determines is not in conformity with the accepted principles of right and wrong behavior or that the Board determines is contrary to the moral standards which are accepted within the District.” . District contends that is has good cause to discharge Dansby based upon the following:

1. Telling a student to “shut the fuck up”;

2. Telling a student, You don’t know anything and you look retarded.”

3. Telling a student, “Your mom is a bad mother, doesn’t know how to raise you, and probably doesn’t care about you.”

4. Calling a student “a little bitch.”

5. Stating, when the assistant principal found a girl asleep in class and nudging her to wake her up, “It took us so long to make her fall asleep, why did you wake her?”

6. Not allowing a student to go to the restroom who had purportedly gotten him into trouble and saying, “Now I am going to make you suffer.”

7. Making the unfounded claim that he had no computer access.

8. When a student who had been put out in the hall attempted to re-enter his classroom without permission, putting his “hand on her breast and face and pushing her out of the room.”

9. When walking out of the school building after being placed on administrative leave pending investigation of the pushing incident, stating to an assistant principal, “I can’t believe it took Deady and HISD ten years and six principals to get rid of me.”

10. Calling a student pretty and that you liked the way she dressed. The student reported being scared and uncomfortable.

1. Telling a student to “shut the fuck up”;

B.P. a student at Deady Middle School, told school officials that Dansby told him to “shut the fuck up”, after he approached Dansby and his cousin T.N. talking together. B.P. said that Dansby asked him if T.N. was his girlfriend and then Dansby told B.P. to “shut the fuck up” . B.P. said that after Dansby made this statement to him, he too made the same statement back at Dansby, and that when B.P. made the statement, he said it “loud”. B.P. also states J., S.C., T.N., and other kids were around when the incident occurred. (TR 108: 1) (T.R. 105: 13 – 22).

During B.P.’s testimony B.P. changed his statement and admitted that Dansby did not initiate the statement, “shut the fuck up”, but said Dansby made the statement after he had done so.

B.P. said that he told Dansby to “shut the fuck up”, because he was upset or irritated that Dansby asked him if his cousin was his girlfriend, and because Dansby was, “ …getting on my nerves when he told—he was talking to me.(TR 101:5).

B.P. was not truthful when he made the first allegation against Dansby in his written statement, although he admitted it later. B.P. said that other students were present besides his cousin T.N., but HISD provides no independent witness to possibly corroborate B.P.’s statements other than his own cousin T.N. who also made allegations against Dansby.

T. N. was present during the dialogue, and although she said to Robinett at the hearing that Dansby did make the statement, she did not include that fact in her written statement in the principal’s office which had been taken not long after the incident occurred.

There is no credible evidence that Dansby made any such statement as both B.P. and T.N. have constantly changed their statements surrounding the entire ordeal, and there is no independent corroboration of what actually happened.

T. N. initially states in her written statement Ex. 13, that another student, J. was crying and when she asked him why, he said that Dansby had told him that – he wasn’t going to end up nowhere; he was going to end up in the streets; he had nothing good for him. (TR 87: 5-16).

At the hearing T.N. tells Rush that J did not tell her anything but was just crying a lot. (TR 95:12-15). This is in total contradiction to her statements at Ex.13, and in her earlier testimony.

The allegation that Dansby told a student to “shut the fuck up”, is not supported by credible evidence and good cause does not exist to terminate Dansby’s continuing contract based on this allegation.

2. Telling a student, You don’t know anything and you look retarded.”

T.N. also alleges that Dansby told her that she looks retarded. Dansby denies making such a statement. B.P. says that he does not remember what Dansby was saying to T.N., only that he was talking bad to her. (TR 99: 6-15).

T.N. says that she was talking with J., and B.P.indicated that J., S.C., and other kids were around during the incident with Dansby. HISD does not provide further testimony or statements of witnesses in support of T.N.’s statement that Dansby called her retarded. Coupled with the fact that T.N. alleged that J. stated that Dansby made negative statements to him and then said that J. did not tell her anything, further diminishes the credibility of her statement. It boils down to who is telling the truth, T.N. or Dansby and T.N. has shown inconsistencies in her statements.

3. Telling a student, “Your mom is a bad mother, doesn’t know how to raise you, and probably doesn’t care about you.”

S.C. is a twelve-year-old female student at Deady. (Tr. 59: 18-22). On November 23, 2011, S.C. asked whether Mr. Dansby believed that she had a good mother. (HISD Ex. 12; Tr. 62: 5-10). S. C. alleges that Dansby in response said that her mom is a bad mother, doesn’t know how to raise her and probably doesn’t care about her.

S.C. indicated that the issue of “mothers”, came about as a group discussion in the classroom and she asked Dansby if her mom was a good mom. (TR 76 11-13). S.C. also indicates that Dansby made a second statement about another student J, not having a good mom on that same day. (TR 61:16-25).

Dansby states that the issue came about after S.C. asked a hypothetical question of which she asserted her own mother into the hypothetical. Dansby’s statement was the following when Robinett asked him about S.C.’s comment:

A. Her comment to me was, “If my mother came into this class and disrupted the class and she sat beside me and she talked and cut up, would she be a bad mother?” (TR 574:21-25).

Dansby went further to say that at the time, he was talking to an entire class of students. “I say to S.C., “I agree.” (TR 575:1-2) He further added that he agreed with S.C.’s hypothetical, “ because the behavior of the mother disrupting my class would be a bad mother, in my opinion”. (TR 575: 4-5). Dansby states that those statements were as close as he came to calling her mother a bad mother, and further states that he never said that her mother did not know how to raise her and doesn’t care for her. (575 1-9).

Petitioners claim that Dansby’s comment upset S.C. because S.C.’s mother was her sole provider, and that Dansby did not understand S.C.’s family situation. (Tr. 64: 11-15). That Dansby insulted S.C. and her mother with his comment. (Tr. 64: 11-15), and that S.C. was so overcome after that comment that she left the classroom. (Tr. 64: 25; 65:1).

After leaving the classroom, S.C. went to see Mr. Dyer, who referred her to the counselor, (Tr. 65: 2-11) and eventually, S.C. met with Officer Lopez, a police officer assigned to the school, and stayed with him for the rest of the class period. (HISD Ex. 12; Tr. 65: 24-25; 66: 1-8).

On the same day, S.C. approached Mr. Leal to discuss the incident. (HISD Ex. 17; Tr. 66: 14-23). It was said that S.C. was crying and appeared to be distressed. (HISD Ex. 17; Tr. 145: 14-16) and Mr. Leal asked S.C. to write down what happened. (Tr. 144: 21-25).

If a child was in such distress to the point that administrators sent her to counselors and allowed her to stay out of class for the rest of the period, why wasn’t a thorough investigation done to determine exactly what may have happened in the classroom during that same day or shortly thereafter with Dansby and other students who were a part of the class and mayhave heard what happened.

S. C.’s characterization of the facts and Dansby’s are clearly opposite as to the context of which the statements were made, and as to what was actually said. There was however, an entire classroom of students, who from S.C.’s recollection, were a part of the “general discussion” about mothers who, if polled at the appropriate time and conditions, may have further exposed what actually happened and in what context the statements were made.

If the child asked the question in the manner that Dansby described, what was he to say, that she would have been a “ good mother”, if she had come into the class and disrupted the class and she sat beside her child and talked and cut up? Dansby should not have addressed the issue at all. The child asked a hypothetical question and Dansby’s answer appeared to based on that limited situation of which S.C.’s mother would probably never do. He says that he has never met S.C.’s mom. (Tr. 576: 16-17).

There is no way too determine the context of Dansby’s statements or the extent of harm, if any, that it could have caused. Just because the child may have been crying does not mean that the statements, if any, that Dansby made were harmful.

I see no evidence that would credibly determine or conclude that immoral conduct occurred in this instance, perhaps bad judgment in engaging in conversations about any of the children’s parents, absent an actual situation being present. Good Cause does not exist to terminate Dansby’s contract based on this allegation.

4. Calling a student “a little bitch.”

W.V. is a thirteen year-old male student who was in sixth grade at Deady during the 2010-2011 school year. (Tr. 14: 10-15). A student spilled milk in the classroom, and W.V. alleged that Dansby called the student a “little bitch.” (Tr. 16: 24-25; 17: 1-9). W.V. told Dansby that he would report him for calling a student a “little bitch.” (HISD Ex. 16; Tr. 17: 13-16).

Apparently, in an entire classroom of students, W.V. appears to be the only student who actually heard this statement. Dansby denies the allegation. W. V. claims that E.V. was the student who spilled the milk and was therefore called the “little bitch”.

After W.V. reported the incident, it does not appear that an administrator performed any investigation of the matter by questioning, even E.V, on whether Dansby used such offensive language or called the child a “little bitch”. Even if he were questioned, no evidence was tendered to further support W.V’s claim that Dansby used such language.

I concur with HISD Counsel that calling a student a “little bitch” is immoral in violation of HISD Board Policy DH (Local) and constitutes good cause to possibly terminate a continuing contract with HISD. (HISD Ex. 1; 4; 5; Tr. 373: 8-18). However in this instance there is no evidence put forth, other than one student, who, in a classroom of several, heard this statement. The child who was alleged to have been called the, “little bitch”, was not called to the office, or even questioned on whether Dansby called he or she this offensive name. Without more, good cause cannot be shown to terminate Dansby’s continuing contract based on this allegation .

Finally, Rush asked W.V. whether anyone else had heard the statement that Dansby was alleged to have said. W.V said that Ms. Johnson, a math teacher at Deady heard Dansby call E.V. a “little bitch”. (Tr. 16: 18 - 23). He later claims that Dansby made the statement after Ms. Johnson had left the classroom. (Tr 17: 1-9). However, there is nothing to substantiate either of those claims as well.

5. Stating, when the assistant principal found a girl asleep in class and nudging her to wake her up, “It took us so long to make her fall asleep, why did you wake her?”

HISD Board Policy DH (LOCAL) defines immorality as “conduct which the Board determines is not in conformity with the accepted principles of right and wrong behavior or that the Board determines is contrary to the moral standards which are accepted within the District.”

Dansby admits that he made this statement. (Tr. 539: 10-12). However, there is nothing immoral about this statement based on HISD Board Policy DH(LOCAL). It was poor humor within the classroom.

This issue concerns whether Dansby was using proper classroom management skills when he allowed a student to fall asleep in his class and not wake her up. His conduct is remedial in nature and can be corrected. Students should be alert and focused on classroom activity and not be allowed to sleep. This allegation does not constitute the violation of HISD Board Policy DH(Local) defining morality, nor does it constitute good cause to terminate Dansby’s continuing contract.

6. Not allowing a student to go to the restroom who had purportedly gotten him into trouble and saying, “Now I am going to make you suffer.”

HISD alleges that Dansby used “Corporal Punishment” when W.V. alleged that Dansby did not allow him to go to the restroom, and that he only did so to make W.V. suffer. The allegation that. Dansby denied a boy a restroom pass in order to retaliate against him and make him suffer is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. There is no credible way to determine Dansby’s state of mind during the incident, if it actually occurred the way that W.V. alleges. Dansby’s statement appears to have been taken totally out of context. There is no corroboration of this statement, merely an allegation from a student that is not supported by independent evidence. This allegation does not constitute the violation of HISD Board Policy DH(Local) defining morality, nor does it constitute good cause to terminate Dansby’s continuing contract.

7. Making the unfounded claim that he had no computer access.

The allegation that Mr. Dansby made an unfounded claim that he had no computer access in December 2010 is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Dansby asserts that there were areas of the system that he could not access. This was the area that allows Paycheck, Chancery Hapg, and all curricular things. (Tr 451:19-21). Dansby was able to access the entire system when Espinoza was assisting him.( Tr 451:22-24).

HISD asserts that Dansby was not honest when he said that he did not have access to the computer for the last ten years, and after Espinoza assisted Dansby in accessing full use of the computer.( Tr 451: 22-23).

Dansby said that he was able to check his email and had limited use of the computer. Dansby never said that he could not use the computer “at all”, but had limited use of the system. ( Tr 19-21).

The allegation states that Dansby said that he had “no” access to the computer and this is untrue. Even if it were true, this issue does not rise to the level of immorality according to HISD Policy, and do not constitute good cause for his termination, either alone or in conjunction with any of the other allegations in this case.

8. When a student who had been put out in the hall attempted to re-enter his classroom without permission, putting his “hand on her breast and face and pushing her out of the room.”

M.W. is a twelve-year old female student at Deady. (Tr. 33: 17-18; 34: 2-3). Because of M.’s behavior in the classroom, M.W. asked her to leave the classroom. After lunch, M.W. attempted to re-enter the classroom, but was stopped by Dansby at the door.

The allegation of physical interaction with a student is the most serious allegation presented by the District. It is undisputed that the student was removed from the room. It is undisputed that she attempted to re-enter the room and was prevented from doing so by Mr. Dansby. It is also undisputed that the student initiated physical contact by pushing Mr. Dansby’s hand away from her. The testimony differs as to whether Mr. Dansby actually touched the student physically. However, the preponderance of the evidence is to the effect that any touching was minimal was not intended to harm the student in any way, did not harm the student, and was reasonable under the circumstances. (Tr. 37:19-39:4; 46:17-48:9; 70:4-19; 79:20-25. Deposition testimony of student Jocelynn R.). Indeed, it was such a minor incident that it did not excite a classroom full of sixth graders enough to discuss it amongst themselves, either in class or the rest of the day. Or even with the student who was allegedly pushed. It did not constitute “significant” harm that would make it irremediable, as required by Whalen v. Rocksprings ISD, No. 65-R1b-284 (Comm’r Educ. 1984): “This is not to say that a teacher may be terminated for participating in any harmful activity no matter how minor; the harm must be significant.”

This is an allegation that illustrates Dansby’s inability to employ necessary measures to ensure order in his classroom without resorting to putting a student outside the class for the class period. One can only imagine what actually occurred in Dansby’s class when the same student who is alleged to be only reciting the states for a quiz, injects herself into yet another teacher, Mr. Dyer’s classroom, and with no regard or respect for the teacher just starts verbally asking if any of the students in the classroom was also in Dansby’s class with her. Mr. Dyer, who no doubt used his training to keep his composure, asked her to get out of his classroom while telling her that she can’t just interrupt his class like that. (Tr 1-17)

Dansby does not appear to have problems with all of his classes. There seems to be a group of students, who associate together that Dansby has problems with. It does not assist the teacher when the student knows that they can leave his classroom at will, go down to a principal’s office, makes a report which is taken as fact without much independent investigation, and no reprimand or punishment for their own behavior. This is more harmful to the student then helpful. This allegation does not constitute the violation of HISD Board Policy DH(Local) defining morality, nor does it constitute good cause to terminate Dansby’s continuing contract. This is an illustration of a teacher who needs remedial assistance in some areas where there id deficiency.

9.When walking out of the school building after being placed on administrative leave pending investigation of the pushing incident, stating to an assistant principal, “I can’t believe it took Deady and HISD ten years and six principals to get rid of me.”

This allegation does not rise to the level of immoral conduct according to HISD Board Policy DH (LOCAL), defines immorality as “conduct which the Board determines is not in conformity with the accepted principles of right and wrong behavior or that the Board determines is contrary to the moral standards which are accepted within the District.”

Dansby’s assertion was one that portrayed an angry teacher who felt that he was being treated inappropriately. It was not alleged that Dansby used profanity, made disparaging statements about the administration or the Assistant Principal who was escorting him off the campus. Dansby may have been venting frustration

Dansby was not being combative, belligerent or otherwise. He may have been embarrassed at being tossed off the campus in possible view of students and peers based on allegations that even the Harris County District Attorney’s office refused to accept charges.

This statement that Dansby made was not immoral and does not constitute good cause for terminating Dansby’s continuing contract.

8. Calling a student pretty and that you liked the way she dressed. The student reported being scared and uncomfortable.

This allegation is not supported by any credible non-hearsay evidence whatsoever, and no credible evidence was presented.

II. Repeated failure to comply with official directives and established school board policy.

The District alleges that Dansby failed to comply with official

directives and established school policy, and claims that it has good cause to terminate Mr. Dansby’s continuing contract because of deficiencies in his performance and classroom management. Evidence that was offered to support the District’s position include the following:

• Spending 15 minutes expressing his opinion about student

behavior during a Walk-through on 12/16/10, during which four students

appeared to be listening to him and five students went to the bathroom at the

same time

• His cell phone rang during class on 1/19/11

• His lesson was not rigorous on 1/20/11

• His daily objectives were not posted on certain occasions,

including 1/20/11

• On 1/21/11, four students were standing in the hall and several students were talking and drumming on desks

• Also on 1/21/11, during another period, two students were standing in the hall talking, three students came in late, and only 10 of 21 students were doing their work

• Having a relaxation time for the students at the beginning of the period.

j. The assistant principal had directed Mr. Dansby to cease having the relaxation time. Mr. Dansby did so initially, then resumed doing so after a discussion with the assistant principal in which Mr. Dansby understood the assistant principal to resume allowing the relaxation period. (Tr. 589:24-592:16.)

k. A number of Walk-Throughs were prepared by administrators, which contained both positive comments and notes about purported deficiencies. (HISD Exhs. 33-36.)

The Commissioner of Education has held in Tyler v. Galveston

ISD, No. 132-R1b-783, p. 19 (Comm’r Education 1984), that, prior to dismissing a continuing contract teacher, it must make a “bona fide effort to assist the teacher in correcting deficiencies which the teacher could reasonably be expected to overcome.” See also, Weatherwax v. Fort Worth ISD, No. 080-R2-1298, p. 4(Comm’r Educ. 1999.)

The district’s position is that Deady administrators attempted to

remediate Dansby’s behavior, and supports that contention with, HISD Ex.

10; 15; 17; 22; 24; 25; 33; 34; 35; 36; Tr. 409: 12-25. These exhibits include

the following:

Exs.# 10 Memo concerning smoking ;

15. Computer Access Memo;

17 Letter from Leal concerning Unprofessional Behavior;

22 Letter from Espinoza concerning Dansby’s letter to Dr.

Grier;

24 Letter about Dansby’s History with HISD;

25 Letter from Leal concerning relaxation time;

33 Classroom Visit from Alvarez;

34 Classroom Visit from Leal;

35 Walkthrough Observation from Wilson;

36 Classroom Visit from Tucker;

Tr. 409 12 -25 Alvarez testimony stating that he tried to

Remediate Dansby’s shortcomings.

The District further argues that Alvarez was not required to put

Dansby on an intervention plan because an intervention plan is only

mandatory if a teacher scores “Below Expectations” on two or more domains

in their PDAS appraisal. (Tr. 408: 6-12). Respondent did not have a formal,

PDAS appraisal during the 2010-2011 school year, and an intervention plan

was not required. (Tr. 408: 19-22).

Although Alvarez was arguably not required to put Dansby on an

intervention plan because of the above reasons, he chose to do so. Alvarez felt

that Dansby could improve if formally placed on and intervention plan where

the objectives were identified and results could be formally measured. . (Tr.

407: 25; 408: 1-2).

Alvarez felt that Dansby could improve and sought to help him to do so

by attempting to place him on this plan . The only reason that Alvarez did not

place Dansby on an intervention plan was because Dansby had been

reassigned. (HISD Ex. 31)

All of the purported performance deficiencies fall into this

category and were remediable. The Intervention Plan was tentatively

scheduled to take effect on January 25, 2011. (HISD Exh. 37.) The

Intervention Plan’s focus was on Learner-Centered Instruction and Classroom

Management. The “Directives for changes in teacher behavior” were as

follows:

The teacher will post complete student learning objective(s) daily.

The teacher will manage his students and time in a professional manner; to include no “relaxation time”, no early dismissal of students, and having students remain in the classroom, with the exception of one student at a time to the restroom. The teacher will also provide our students rigorous instruction daily. Directives will occur immediately and lead to heightened student participation, as well as providing a classroom environment conductive to learning.

All of the purported performance deficiencies fall into this category and were remediable. Although the principal was preparing to make what appeared to be a bona fide effort to assist Mr. Dansby with his purported deficiencies as an instructor, he had not done so as of the date when Mr. Dansby was removed from the campus. Therefore, none of these deficiencies can be used to justify the termination of Mr. Dansby’s contract for good cause, prior to the good faith implementation of the Intervention Plan.

The allegations of “immoral conduct” prior to the alleged “pushing incident” were not included in the draft of the Intervention Plan prepared by the principal, although doing so would certainly have been appropriate had they been considered matters of serious concern to the administration. The appraisal instrument, on which Intervention Plans are based, includes Domains and Indicators in the areas of Professional Communication, including written, verbal, and non-verbal communication with students, parents, staff, community members and other professionals.

Good cause does not exist for terminating the continuing contract of Mr. Dansby based on the evidence in the record, either for the reasons cited as “immorality” or deficiencies in the classroom. The allegations that were made against Dansby that were considered immoral are insufficient. Whereas most of the allegations of immorality concerned one or two students alleging bad behavior by Mr. Dansby, On several, if not most, other students were present and could have supported a thorough investigation of most of the instances that occurred.

Mr. Dansby was on a continuing contract and therefore good cause did not exist to remove Dansby unless remedial actions had been taken which were about to begin but he was removed from the classroom.

Conclusions of Law

After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed and the foregoing Findings of Fact, in my capacity as hearings examiner, I make the following Conclusions of Law.

1. The hearing examiner has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to Chapter 21. Subchapter F. Section 21.251 of the Texas Education Code.

2. Good Cause does not exist to terminate Dansby’s continuing Contract and therefore there was no violation of HISD Board Policy DH (LOCAL)’s definition of immorality.

3. The record and proof submitted would not justify a discharge.

4. The district does not have good cause for discharging Dansby.

RECOMMENDATION

After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed and the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in my capacity as hearings examiner, I hereby recommend that the Board of Trustees adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and (i) teacher should be given further training in classroom management; appropriately managing discipline problems in the classrooms; (ii) if teacher remains at Deady, should be placed on an improvement plan to correct deficiencies as outline in plan that would have been given previously (iii). district may reprimand if Respondent cannot or will not correct the complained of behavior. The biggest concern is that Dansby and administration may have lost significant confidence in their ability to continue to work together as a team and suggest strongly that Dansby be placed at another school

Sincerely,

Paula Robnett-Theodorio

Certified Hearing Examiner

Cc Cory Rush

Paul Lamp

Rogers, Morris & Grove, L.L.P.,

Mark Robinett

Brim, Arnett, Robinett, Conners & McCormick, PC of Austin, Texas.

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download