TEA DOCKET NO



TEA DOCKET NO. 132-LH-0509

SPRING BRANCH § BEFORE

INDEPENDENT §

SCHOOL DISTRICT, §

PETITIONER § PAULA ROBNETT-THEODORIO

§ CERTIFIED HEARING EXAMINER

VS §

MARGARET HOWARD §

RESPONDENT § TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY

RECOMMENDATION OF

INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER

Statement of the Case

Petitioner, Spring Branch Independent School District, (“SBISD”), proposes termination of Respondent, Margaret Howard’s (“Howard”) continuing teacher’s contract pursuant to the teacher’s contract, and §21.154(4) and (5) and §21.156(a) of the Texas Education Code, based on deficiencies pointed out in observation reports, appraisals, memoranda, and other communications; failure to fulfill duties or responsibilities; failure to maintain an effective working relationship, or to maintain good rapport with colleagues; insubordination or failure to comply with official directives; and failure to comply with reasonable district requirements regarding advanced coursework or professional improvement and growth.

Paula Robnett-Theodorio is the Certified Independent Hearing Examiner assigned by the Texas Education Agency to preside at the hearing. SBISD is represented by Janet Horton, Thompson & Horton, LLP., Houston, Texas. Ms. Howard is represented by Elizabeth Poole, TSTA, National Education Association, Austin Texas.

The parties, by written agreement waived the 45-day recommendation deadline.

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. Ms. Margaret Howard (“Howard”), is employed by SBISD under a continuing contract. She has been an SBISD employee since 2000.Vol.3, p.790.[1][Vol.__ ]" Ms. Howard’s most recent teaching assignment was Spring Oaks Middle School, (SOMS), where she taught Science during the 2008-2009 school year until on or about the time of her medical leave of absence in Spring 2009 and pending this hearing.

2. The principal at SOMS who recommended termination is Dr. David Sablatura (“Sablatura”). Sablatura has been the principal at SOMS since the 2004/2005 school year. Vol. 2. P. 498.

3. Mr. Bryan Williams (“Williams”), is an assistant principal at SOMS. He began as assistant principal in the 2006-2007 school year. Vol.1, p45.

4. Ms. Jan Casey (“Casey”) is the School Improvement Specialist

(SIS) at SOMS. Her job is to work with teachers at all grade levels in math and science to improve instruction and student performance. Vol. 2, p. 296.

5. Williams, was Howard’s direct supervisor and appraiser from 2006-2009

school years. Vol. 1, p.45.

6. Ms. Yasmin Azeeem (“Azeem”) is the sixth grade science teacher and team leader at SOMS. She was the sixth grade science team leader in the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years when Howard taught sixth grade science. Vol. 2, pp. 405-408.

7. By letter dated April 17, 2009, Dr. Duncan Klussmann, Ed.D.,

Superintendent of Schools for SBISD, notified Ms. Howard of the board’s intent to not renew her contract of employment as a teacher with SBISD. Ms. Howard requested that the Commissioner of Education appoint a certified hearing examiner to preside over a hearing and a certified hearing examiner was appointed.

8. SBISD proposes to terminate Ms. Howard’s continuing contract under Texas Education Code §§ 21.154(4) and 21.156 for good cause and for the reasons stated in District Policy DFBB (Local), and enumerated as follows:

1. Deficiencies pointed out in observation reports, appraisals, memoranda, and other communications.

2. Failure to fulfill duties or responsibilities.

20. Failure to maintain an effective working relationship, or

maintain good rapport with colleagues.

5. Insubordination or failure to comply with official directives.

16. Failure to comply with reasonable district requirements

regarding advanced coursework or professional improvement

and growth.

2006 – 2007 School Year

9. On May 2, 2007, during her appraisal/summative conference, Howard received notification from Williams, that she would be placed on a growth plan after she was removed from participation in the 8th grade math team because of allegations of unprofessional behavior with her team members, non-cooperative behavior in working together as a member of an assigned team, and not sharing information with team members who were assigned to work together with her. Pet.21, 24.

10. Howard files a grievance on May 22, 2006 requesting that the proposal to develop a growth plan the next school year be removed from her appraisal and that no growth plan, or Teacher in Need of Assistance, (TINA), be put in place. Vol. 1, pp. 59, 61, 71; Pet. 24; Vol. 2, pp. 516-517.

11. Howard agrees to teach 6th grade science for the 2007/2008 school year. Pet 23.

2007 2008 School Year

12. Williams continues as Howard’s appraiser in the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years. Vol. 1, p. 71.

13. Howard becomes a member of the sixth grade science team consisting of Azeem, Jodie Slentz and Howard. Azeem was the team leader. Oliver, eighth grade science teacher, was the department chair.

14. Fall 2007–2008, Williams and Sablatura made several documented and undocumented observations of Howard’s science class. Vol. 1, pp. 78-80; Vol. 2, pp. 525, 531.

15. On October 24, 2007, Casey observed that Howard continued to use sixth grade students for help during the eight grade Science Prep class. Vol. 2, pp. 321-322; 325; Pet. 29.

16 . On October 31, 2007, Casey observed Howard’s Science Prep class and reported to the administration that Howard’s tone and statements to the students were disturbing. . Howard told the eighth grade students that the test was a sixth grade test and should be easy for them in a demeaning tone. Vol. 2, p. 323; Pet. Exh. 32.

17. Fall of the 2007 - 2008 school year, Howard’s students outperformed the other science academic classes on the District-wide benchmark exam. Vol 2, p. 328 1

18. Casey questions the validity of the benchmark scores because it was reported to her by one of Howard’s students that Howard’s class did not finish the test in one period as required by the District because Howard allowed them to review the material that would be covered before taking the test. Vol. 2, p. 328- 330.

19. In January 23, 2008 conference with Sablatura, Howard admit she spent half of the period reviewing the students on the material, then the students began the benchmark test. Vol. 2, pp. 538-540; Pet. 39.

20. February 2, 2008 Sablatura forwards memo of January 23rd meeting to Howard. Howard responds on February 15, 2008 claiming she only reviewed the students on test procedures. Vol. 2, pp. 538-540; Pet. 39.

21. Howard’s benchmark scores for Fall 2008 are the lowest of the three science teachers in Spring 2008.  They were the highest in the Fall of 2007.  Vol. 4, p. 1074

22. During same conference of January 2008, and memo of February 2, 2008, Sablatura also stated his expectation that Howard was not to tell students she was not good in science as was reported to him by Mr. Santucci, an assistant principal during a visit to her classroom. Vol. 2, p. 545; Pet. 39.

23. Williams conducts a 55 minute walkthrough observation of Howard’s class on December 13, 2008, rather than the 15 minutes required by the appraisal system. Vol. 1, pp. 78-79; Pet. 33.

24. After this observation, Williams, Sablatura and Casey decides that Howard needs additional help from the Science Specialist at the District level. Vol. 1, pp. 78-79; Pet. 33.

25. Williams found the following deficiencies during his observation of Howard’s class December 13, 2007: Vol. 1, pp. 86, 87, 89-90, 96; Pet. 33

• All students were not on task;

• no evidence of good lesson design;

• no evidence that all activities were targeted toward reaching a specific student objective;

• questions on a low level of reasoning on Bloom’s Taxonomy;

• lack of congruency in the classroom;

• lack of DDI components and congruency.

26. January 14, 2008, Casey observes Howard’s fifth period science class and forwards a letter to Sablatura stating that based on her observations, Howard needed additional help from the district. She noted the following: Vol. 2, pp. 334-336; Pet. Exh. 34.

• The class atmosphere was chaotic,

• Howard did not have full attention of the class;

• the lesson was not prepared adequately;

• Howard spoke in a demeaning tone to her students; and,

• none of the DDI framework was being implemented.

27. January 15, 2008, Casey attempts to schedule a meeting with Howard for Burken, a district-level science specialist, to help her.Vo. 2, pp.340-341; Pet 35;36.

28. January 15, 2008, Casey drafts letter to Sablatura stating that Howard displayed unprofessional behavior that goes “beyond the limits of common decency and respect” when she approached Howard about scheduling a meeting with Burken. She also added that Howard often treats students and teachers in an unprofessional manner; has outbursts, berates her co-workers, and believes Howard has an anger management problem. Vol. 2, pp. 340-341; Pet. 35;

29. January 2008, Williams meets with Howard to behavior toward Casey. Vol.1, p. 103; Pet. 37.

30. Williams prepares a memo to Howard summarizing the conference which clearly stated his expectations that Howard would treat colleagues in a professional manner. Vol.1, p. 103; Pet. 37.

31. February 1, 2008, a meeting ensued between Casey, Howard, and Williams after Casey observed Howard’s Science Prep class noting that Howard was not prepared for the class, was a week behind the other Science Prep teachers, and was behind the sixth grade science team. Vol. 2, pp. 347-350; Pet. 38.

32. 2007-2008, Casey observes most of the Science team meetings and notes that Howard was not contributing to the team and that she was rude and unprofessional throughout the school year. Vol. 2, pp. 345; 351-352.

33. Throughout Fall 2007 Azeem taught Howard science curriculum so that Howard could then teach it to her students. Vol 2, pp. 414 -420.

34. February 22, 2008, Azeem e-mails Oliver to express her serious concerns with Howard’s lack of contribution and unwillingness to cooperate, after Howard does not complete an assignment given by Azeem to the sixth grade science team. Azeem claims Howard is unprepared each day to teach the science curriculum and that she often tells her that she does not understand or know the content. Vol. 1, pp. 104-106; Vol. 2, pp. 431-433; Pet. 42; Pet. 43.

35. March 14, 2008, Williams meet with Howard about Azeem’s complaints and . summarizes the conference in a memorandum to Howard setting forth his expectation for her to collaborate with the team and be adequately prepared for class each day. Vol. 1, pp. 106-107.

36. Azeem complains to Sabltura about her having to help Ms. Howard with her class materials everyday and asks how long she must continue to do so. Vol. 2, pp. 547-548

37. Azeem lodges further complaints of Howard’s absences; not performed a DNA lab project for her class; and sharing her private password with a substitute teacher so that he could provide a test to Azeem. Vol. 1, pp.109 – 111.

38. April 15, 2008, Williams performs a 55 minute, second walkthrough of Howard’s class. 15 minutes is the required minimal time period for an observation. Williams found no lesson plans or roadmap, and indicates that Howard did not address any level of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Vol. 1, pp. 119, 120-123, 135; Pet. 45; Pet. 48; Pet. 51.

39. April 25, 2008, during a conference concerning the April 15 observation of Howard’s class, Williams indicated to Howard that weaknesses in her lessons were noted and that based on his observation, she had failed to use the DDI framework in any observation throughout the 2007-2008 school year. Vol. 1 pp. 135-136; Pet. 55; . Vol. 1, p. 112; Pet. 48.

40. During April 25, 2008 conference, Howard admits that she had not done the DNA lab, and that she had given her password to a substitute teacher. Vol. 4, pp. 928-929; Pet. 48 .

41. Howard was put on notice by Williams, of her not implementing the DDI Instructional strategies as required by the SBISD. Howard acknowledged her understanding of the DDI strategies, provided examples of implementation of such strategies, and when asked if she intended to follow the DDI strategy, she answered “Yes”. Vol 3., pp. 818 – 821.

42. Howard put on notice by Sablatura and Dr. Duncan Klussman, Superintendent, that her contract would not be extended in the Spring of 2008, and will enter the 2008-2009 school year with a term contract to expire June 2009. Vol. 1, p. 135; Vol. 2, p. 546; Pet. 52; Pet. 53; Pet. 54.

43. Howard continues to aggrieve her placement on a TINA plan throughout most of the 2007-2008 school year, and subsequently withdraws her grievance after a meeting with the Superintendent and others.

44. Sablatura decides not to place Howard on a growth plan during the beginning of the 2007-2008 school years indicating that he believed that they needed to work through the grievance process before implementing the growth plan. Vol. 2. p. 516.

45. On May 13, 2008, after withdrawal of her grievance, Howard initiates contact with Sablatura through e-mail, requesting a mutually developed growth plan be agreed upon so that she may begin the growth plan. Vol. 2. Pp. 560-561.

46. Julie Chen, (“Chen”), Attorney for Texas State Teachers Association, (TSTA), and Dr. Sablatura, communicated primarily through email, on the contents of the growth plan and on June 19, 2008, a joint agreement was entered into between Howard, Chen, and Sablatura, on the contents of the growth plan. Pet. 62.

47. The growth plan was to start and end on August 14, 2008 – November 7, 2008, with expectations that Howard would be more cooperative with her team in planning and implementing instruction; interacting more professionally with others; and being better prepared for her classes.

48. Howard was also to do the following for successful completion of the growth plan: Vol. 2, pp. 568-569; Pet.67.

• Attend one professional development workshop related to professional communication by September 15, 2008.

• Read three chapters from a book on communication skills, as designated by the principal by September 15, 2008.

• Attend district DDI training in the fall with the option to attend summer or fall.

49. Finally Howard was to complete two written summaries, one to the principal explaining what she had learned and how she would apply it to her classroom and her interaction with her team and others, and the second written summary to the principal describing how she had applied the learning and the outcome. Vol2. P.569; Pet. 67.

2008 – 2009 School Year

50. The Tina required Howard to read three chapters on communication skills from the book entitled, The Team Approach, with Sablatura suggesting three chapters that would convey the information that would be appropriate for Howard to learn. Vol 2, pp. 570-571, Pet 67.

51. Sablatura rejects Howards first report on the book, and restates the requirement that Howard read the first three chapters of the book and describes what he would like for her to expound on in her report. He also assigns a extension for it’s due date. Vol 2. Pp 571, Pet. 68.

52. Sablatura waives the professional development workshop requirement

for Ms. Howard’s completion of the growth plan. Vol 2. P. 573.

53. Howard tenders her second report to Sablatura on the extended deadline date of January 9,2009. Vol. 2, pp.601-602.

54. 2008-2009 school year Williams continues as Howard’s appraiser and continues to express concern about the quality and nature of her instruction. Vol. 1, p.141.

55. October 20, 2008, Sablatura conducts 50 minute observation of Howard’s class, expressing concern that the class activities did not correspond to the lesson plans, that she was behind her team in assignments offered to her students, roadmaps were not available, and was operating on low level of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Vol.2, pp.578-585, Pet. 71.

56. October 27, 2008, Howard’s teammates give good review of Howard’s attitude, and willingness to contribute to the team. Pet. 71.

57. Howard assigned to team as scribe where she was to write and distribute notes to her teammates. Howard admits sending notes much later than the dates that they should have been forwarded to teammates, but indicates that she sent copies of the notes by email but did not supply evidence supporting her claim. Vol. 4, pp. 965- 971.

58. Sablatura forwards memo to Howard indicating that a team member had shared with him that she was sharing her employment disputes with them and that such behavior was unprofessional. Vol 2. Pp. 576-578, Pet 71.

59. According to Williams, observations of October 30, 2008 and December 16, 2008, showed that Howard was still not using appropriate levels of Blooms Taxonomy and DDI strategies. Vol. 1, pp.141-144; Vo1. 2, p. 585, Pet.2.; Vol.1 pp. 149-151; Pet.74.

60. March 11, 2009, Sablatura confers with Azeem who indicates that Howard does not make meaningful contribution to the sixth grade science team, did not help with lesson plans or creative activities, was confrontational at times, and shared information about her problems with SOMS. Vol 2. Pp. 478; 608-611; Pet. 60. March 11, 2009, Sablatura makes recommendation to Superintendent for nonrenewal of Howard’s contract. Pet 2.

61. March 23, Dr. Klussmann proposes Howard’s nonrenewal to the Board of Trustees. Pet. 1; Pet 100.

Discussion

SBISD must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it had lawful cause to propose termination of Howard’s continuing contract. That is, the greater weight and degree of credible evidence must support repeated and continuing neglect of duties and/or, repeated failure to comply with official directives and established school board policy, and/or inefficiency or incompetency in performance of duties, and/or failure to comply with such reasonable requirements as the Employer may prescribe for achieving professional improvement and growth, and/or has, good cause as generally recognized and applied in similarly situated situations throughout the State of Texas. Texas Education Code, §21.256(h).

From the evidence submitted to this Hearing Examiner, it appears that Howard had several problems at SOMS during the 2006 - 2009 school years, both on campus and off. Although no information was provided at the hearing, at Vol. 2 p. 304, Casey states in her testimony that,” Howard was talking frequently about her personal problems” during team meetings. This was even before Howard was placed on a growth plan, or before she transferred to the science department, or all of the observations by administration and reports of her unprofessional behavior and impaired work ethic had been reported to administrators by her team members.

Personal problems and others that developed at SOMS, may have affected Howards performance as a teacher as Pam Schwabrow testified that former Assistant Principal Andrea Rasha had previously told her that Howard was a “ great teacher”, and “strong asset” to the school. Vol. 1, p.274. Still, it is difficult to comprehend how a highly experienced, and from previous indications, “great teacher”, could receive such positive appraisals and evaluations from different appraisers for several years prior to, and during the 2006 -2007 school year, and then appear to do almost everything wrong from the 2007 – 2009 school years, to the point that it be recommended that her contract not be renewed. Resp. 1 – 21.

During William’s summary conference on May 2, 2007, Howard received consistent praise of her abilities to teach her students. Pet. 21, at page 2, at the “summary of the staff member’s performance” area of her summative appraisal, Williams writes the following:

Ms Howard has worked hard at providing a structured learning environment for her students. Her students are usually willing and able to discuss what they are learning and why it’s important. Ms. Howard’s strength is maintaining open communication with the parents/guardians of her students. She is always willing to communicate with e-mails, phone calls or parent conference about the progress of her students.

At the same conference meeting, when describing information that substantiates the accomplishment of the goals that Howard had set out for herself during the appraisal summary dated November 20, 2006 and as attached to the May 2, 2007 summative conference report, it states the following:

*Texteams units were implemented throughout the curriculum to reach a higher level of thinking according to Bloom’s Taxonomy; and,

*The two DDI strategies were implemented through the school year – Active Participation and Writing Clear Objectives.

During this evaluation there was no complaint of Howard’s use of Bloom’s Taxonomy or DDI strategies. In fact Williams praised Howard on how hard she had worked at “providing a structured work environment for her students” was noted. Pet. 21.

This same summative conference report was also the first formal indication to Howard that she would be placed on a growth plan for episodes of alleged unprofessional behavior. The growth plan, when first mentioned, was to address only this alleged bad behavior that Howard expressed toward her teammates, but appeared to spiral into much more.

Howard claims that she was willing to transfer to science, because she felt that by doing so would stop the administration from proceeding with their plans to place her on a growth plan. This did not happen and she filed a grievance to prevent the growth plan. While the grievance was proceeding, Howard began to transition herself from being a math teacher to teaching science, however her heart was still in math.

In Vol. 2, p.506, Sablatura indicated that it is he as principal who decides what position he places a teacher in. Instead of allowing a teacher to volunteer for the science position that was vacant, he could have assigned Ms. Howard to teach science, without their input. Howard did not respond to the email that was sent notifying other teachers of the vacancy, and therefore appeared to be the only one available to feel the vacancy. Nevertheless she appeared to be happy to assume the job. According to Howard, it was her hope that she would now have a chance at a “fresh start”. Vol. 3, page 795. Therefore her repeated lamentations of being a math and not a science teacher , while true, Howard should have focused on being the science teacher and not to become disgruntled after she began to teach the class. Mr. Williams and Sablatura both expressed that it too was their hope for Howard that by leaving the math department and going to science, would be a fresh start for her. Her new mates in the science department, Azeem and Oliver, appeared to be happy to receive Howard into their department.

Howard would truly have had a “fresh start”, if a different appraiser had been appointed to monitor her progress other than Williams. Howard was aggrieving the recommendation for the growth plan that had been included in her summative conference on May 2, 2007 that was prepared by Williams. There was disagreement between Howard and Williams that may have caused Williams to lose his objectivity when it came to evaluating Howard’s classes and her ability to teach. During William’s testimony he was asked to refer to a memo that he had drafted to Howard on November 12, 2008 summarizing a conference that he had with her about a classroom observation on October 30, 2008. Williams indicated to Howard in the memo that: Pet. 72

“during the lesson, you used encouragement and praise when providing feedback to your students after sharing their observations. You used proximity during the discussion and positioned yourself around the room at various places to raise the level of concern. You also included as many students in the discussion as possible.”

When Williams was asked by attorney Poole whether he was pleased to see positive interactions between Howard and her students, he said “Honestly, no,” and that “I felt like it was superficial and artificial because I was observing her class”. Vol. 1, p.194

How would Williams have been able to determine that Howard was not being sincere in conducting her class? She was doing things right, but it was deemed to be an act just for him. Howard possibly would never have been able to perform in such a way to be convincing enough for Williams to believe that she was actually performing her duties for her students and not for him.

Williams should not have been assigned Howard’s appraiser for the entire 2006-2009 school year. There were other assistant principals who could have been appointed to appraise Howard, or any other qualified person. Sablatura did not appear to be interested in seeking the opinion of someone else, perhaps in addition to Williams, to compare Howard’s progress. Williams testimony at Vol.1, p.72, when asked why he continued as Howard’s appraiser, responded that it was, “Dr. Sablatura’s thought that since I had originally started out evaluating Ms. Howard, that there needed to be continuity with her. So I continued to appraise her.” I do not believe that continuity should have been as important as providing well rounded opinions of this teachers progress. If Sablatura would have assigned a different appraiser for Howard during at least one of the school terms between 2006-2009, he possibly would have had a better analysis of the quality of Howard’s performance as a teacher.

I do however still agree that Howard had problems with applying various levels of Blooms Taxonomy and the DDI strategies within her science class. It appears that she understood the concepts as there is no indication that she had problems applying these concepts to her math classes. It was a matter of how to integrate these concepts into the science curriculum. Ms. Howard could have gained assistance in the areas where she was deficient through online sources, workshops, and other resources. If these deficiencies were present during the 2007- 2008 school year, there should have been marked progress for the 2008 -2009 school year. This does not appear to be the case.

In regards to Howard’s classroom performance, Ms. Azeem provided significant assistance to Ms. Howard to assist her through the initial transition into the science department, but Howard should not have grown to depend so heavily on her. Ms. Azeem complained that her continued assistance to Howard made her own work to suffer. This became a significant problem for Howard, one that she was reprimanded about from Sablatura in a memo of April 1, 2009. This hearing examiner does not understand why administration, especially after Sablatura discovered that Azeem’s continued to assist Howard, did not intervene so that Azeem could focus on her own work.

Casey attempted to call an outside specialist, but it is unclear why Casey did not provide these services to Howard, since she was the SIS assigned to SOMS. Casey was not a classroom teacher, and as Casey was aware of what was going on, she could have provided Howard the assistance she needed instead of teaching Azeem’s class so that Azeem would provide these services and then now complain about what she was had to do. This is part of what Casey was assigned to the schools to do.

The entire atmosphere at SOMS as it related to Howard was very strained and bordered on being unprofessional. An environment was allowed to prosper where teachers were encouraged to report everything that happened with Howard directly to administration, instead of talking to Howard to try and work things out. Even if they could not talk to Howard and reported incidents to Williams, Sablatura or others, the teacher was not protected. Then the administrators would promptly report to Howard what the teacher had told them. This caused strained relationships between teachers who had to continue to work with each other.

It is hard to determine what was true about Howard’s alleged unprofessional behavior and what was untrue. For instance, after Azeem makes a report to Sablatura that Ms. Howard is not carrying her weight and that she is tired of doing all of the work for Howard, Sablatura and/or Williams conferences with Howard about what Azeem has told them and reprimands her. Later Howard tells Azeem that she is going to be sick or files for worker’s compensation if the Sablatura and Williams do not leave her alone. In another instance, Casey and team members constantly complained that Howard continuously discusses her personal business with them of which they claim not to want to hear, instead of telling her they are not interested in hearing these things, they promptly report to the principal or his assistant what Howard has told them. They provide a warning to Howard in a memo that goes in her permanent file. Amazingly, after Howard is warned and now knows that she is being reported, she still tells these same people who have previously reported her, more potentially damaging information. Either much of this is untrue or Ms. Howard is in fact under the false assumption that these are people who really care about what is going on in her life.

Attorney Horton questions Howard on whether she used profanity toward her colleagues and threw her keys onto a table in anger during a team meeting. Howard did not clearly answer the question, however she did say that she might have tossed her keys on the table. My concern is in what could have ensued for any person to insult their colleagues in such a manner? Nevertheless these answers are not determinable here.

Howard appears to have a history of noncompliance with SBISD requirements of having lesson plans along with roadmaps completed, available, and accessible for review and on demand when requested by SBISD officials. Without roadmaps in place and updated lesson plans available and accessible for her and administrators to review on demand, Howard is not able to have a clear directional path for her students to follow. Without such devices in place, it is nearly impossible to stay on track with lessons that the students will need to be adequately prepared for benchmark exams, and to have a complete understanding of the subject matter that is being taught. The teacher will need these tools to stay on track with her lesson, and for assurance that she has completed all the topics within the subject. In Sablatura’s memo of December 19, 2008, it indicated that Howard had began to prepare team lesson plans for the third six weeks and the team leader felt that they were well written.

Howard’s limited use of DDI strategies in science could have been improved if she would have devoted more of her time to preparing roadmaps and lesson plans. Howard seemed to have done well in math with her students. It is undeterminable whether lack of lesson plans and roadmaps were a problem for Howard when she taught math, but her appraisals from Williams in 2006 did not indicate that she had such problems.

Although Howard withdrew her grievance and accepted that she would continue with the growth plan, she seemed to still believe that she did not need it. Howard was assigned three primary activities of which with each of them she encountered a problem. Howard nor Sablatura could find an appropriate professional workshop for her to attend. There was a question as to whether Howard could have searched for one during the summer, but she did not and that requirement was later waived by Sablatura.

Sablatura was clear in his assignment of the three chapters to read. During his several email transmissions between he and Julie Chen, Howard’s TSTA legal representative, Chen clearly states in email dated July 9, 2009, that it was Sablatura who needed to select the book chapters for the report to be prepared from. Chen added that she saw no reason for delaying the issuing of the chapters, and even suggested chapters from another popular book that was a favored reference for many. In Sablatura’s response, he expressed that the first three chapters pertained to communication and collaborating on a team, the reasons why Howard was being required to draft the report and for being on the growth plan.

Howard’s selection of another chapter, with a focus on one chapter and not three and in an area that was not even suggested, is not credible, nor is it convincing that she did not know what to do. Sablatura received her first report, provided further clarification on the assignment and allowed her to resubmit it.

The final activity was to attend a DDI workshop. Howard believed that she was to attend the workshop that was held at the campus, while Sablatura intended for Howard to attend the district wide workshop. Once he found out that Howard misunderstood, he arranged for her to attend a workshop that had already started. Sablatura extended the deadline for the growth plan to be completed. Finally there was a misunderstanding on the number of reports that Howard should write. and that too was clarified.

It is unclear whether Howard did not comprehend everything that she was to complete for successful completion of the growth plan, or was she just being defiant. Howard, whether erroneously or not, felt that once she successfully completed the growth plan, she would be allowed to transfer to another school. If this was her goal, it seems more likely that she would have tried to comply with everything that was necessary to successfully complete the growth plan in a timely manner. Sablatura set the dates for the plan to be completed, and it was within his right to extend them of which he did. After Sablatura’s review of everything that had gone on with Howard he, in my opinion felt that he had enough and recommended nonrenewal.

Conclusions of Law

1. Jurisdiction is proper under Texas Education Code Sections 21.159 and 21.251(a)(1).

2. The general rule propounded by the Texas Commissioner for Education in the Commissioner’s Decision in Everton v. Roundrock Independent School District, Docket. No. 070-R2-1091 (Comm’r Educ. 1995), that conduct from prior school years cannot be the independent basis for termination of a teacher contract is limited to prohibit the use of conduct from a prior contract term. Accordingly, the general rule does not apply to a teacher employed under a continuing contract with regard to any allegations occurring during existence of the continuing contract.

3. Spring Branch Independent School District has sustained its burden by a preponderance of credible evidence to non-renew Howard’s continuing contract for good [lawful] cause.

4. Spring Branch Independent School District sustained its burden by a preponderance of credible evidence, to terminate Howard’s continuing contract in accordance with its provisions for:

1. Deficiencies pointed out in observation reports, appraisals,

memoranda, and other communications.

16. Failure to comply with reasonable District requirements

regarding advanced coursework or professional

improvement and growth.

5. SBISD has proved by the preponderance of the credible evidence that it had good cause to terminate Howard because she failed 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.

6. Any findings of fact deemed conclusion of law are hereby adopted as such in support of the recommendation for termination.

Recommendation

After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in my capacity as hearing examiner. I recommend that the Board of Trustees adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Although I have found that there is good cause to terminate Ms. Howard. I would respectfully recommend the board to consider the provisions of Section 21.106, Subchapter C of the Education Code if they have not done so already. Under this provision a teacher employed under a term contract may in lieu of discharge be returned by the school district to a probationary status with the written consent of the teacher. Also it would serve well for Ms. Howard if she is allowed to complete this probation, if granted, at a school other than Spring Oaks Middle School.

My impression of Ms. Howard is that she is concerned about her students learning. Several of her appraisals and evaluations praised her for her work with the students, corresponding with the parents by email and others and genuinely wanted her students to succeed. In this day of scarce qualified teacher availability , especially in math, resorting to a rehabilitation and counseling effort may be worthwhile. Ms. Howard clearly wants to teach as she fought for her job. Under a different environment I feel that she could excel once again.

SIGNED and issued this 6th day of August 2009.

_______________________________

PAULA ROBNETT-THEODORIO

CERTIFIED INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been forward to all counsel of record via facsimile and regular mail on this the 6th day of August, 2009.

Ms. Janet Hoton

Thompson & Horton, LLP

711 Louisiana, Suite 2100

Houston, Texas 77002

Ms. Elizabeth Poole

Texas State Teachers Association/NEA

316 West 12th St,

Austin, Texas 78701 _

-----------------------

[1]References to the transcript from the hearing are designated in the following manner: "

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download