#282-R9-789
--
DOCKET NO. 282-R9-789
JESSIE MCKINNEY
+
V.
TEXARKANA INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT
BEFORE THE STATE
+
+
+
+
+
+
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
THE STATE OF TEXAS
DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER
Statement of the Case
Petitioner, Jessie McKinney, appears before this Agency
complaining that Respondent's use of the "Glen Conversion"
to convert a seven-point scale to a five-point scale was
arbitrary and capricious because it unfairly penalized
Petitioner.
The parties in this matter have agreed to stipulation
of facts and to resolution of this action through submission
of cross motions for summary judgment. Maggie H. Montelongo
is the Hearing Officer appointed by the State Commissioner
of Education to preside over this matter. Petitioner is
represented by Dianne E. Doggett, Attorney at Law from
Austin, Texas. Respondent is represented by Josh R.
Morriss, III, Attorney at Law from Texarkana, Texas.
The initial Proposal for Decision was withdrawn and an
amended Proposal for Decision was issued on March 22, 1990.
Petitioner filed exceptions to the amended proposal on April
18, 1990. Respondent filed replies to the exceptions on
April 26, 1990. Review of the exceptions fails to yield a
different outcome. Petitioner's exceptions are denied and
it is hereby ordered that Petitioner's cross motion for
summary judgment be denied and that Respondent's cross
motion for summary judgment be granted.
Findings of Fact
After due consideration of the evidence and matters
officially noticed, in my capacity as State Commissioner of
Education, I make the following Findings of Fact:
1. Petitioner was employed as a teacher by Respondent
during the events in question. (Stipulated).
2. Petitioner applied to the Respondent school
district for placement on level two of the teacher career
ladder for the 1985-86 school year. (Stipulated).
3. Petitioner satisfied the experience and education
requirements of Tex. Educ. Code Ann +13.308 for placement on
level two of the career ladder. (Stipulated).
4. Respondent denied Petitioner placement on level two
on the basis of her 1984-85 performance. (Stipulated).
5. Petitioner, along with Cathryn Turner and Avis
Walker, appealed their 1985-86 career ladder placement
determinations to the State Commissioner of Education.
Jessie McKinney, et al. v. Texarkana Independent School
District, No. 351-R9-786 (Comm'r Dec. 10/31/88).
(Stipulated).
6. Respondent was found to have utilized a seven-point
scale to evaluate its teachers during the 1984-85 school
year, in violation of Tex. Educ. Ann. +13.304. Jessie
McKinney, et al. v. Texarkana Independent School District,
No. 351-R9-786 (Comm'r Dec. 10/31/88). (Stipulated).
7. Respondent was ordered to convert the first 1984-85
evaluation to a five point scale and disregard the ranking
system previously used and then to reassess the teachers'
career ladder placement. Jessie McKinney, et al. v.
Texarkana Independent School District, No. 351-R9-786
(Comm'r Dec. 10/31/88). (Stipulated).
8. Upon remand, Respondent district converted the
first 1984-85 evaluation from the initial seven point scale
to a five point scale by multiplying the original scores by
5/7, and rounding off to integers (known as "Glen's
Conversion"). (Stipulated).
9. Using "Glen's Conversion", Avis Walker and Cathryn
Turner had post-conversion evaluations of 4.05 and 4.00,
respectively, and were placed on level two. Petitioner
McKinney's converted score was 3.96, and she was not placed
on level two. (Stipulated).
10. Avis Walker and Petitioner both had preconversion
average ratings of 5.69. Walker was placed on level two
whereas Petitioner was not so placed. (emphasis added)
(Stipulated).
11. The score conversion charts for Petitioner and
Avis Walker consists of three summaries, with a separate
score ascribed to each summary. Summary I consists of 9
subcategories/elements, Summary II includes 5
subcategories/elements, and Summary III includes 20
subcategories/elements. (Jt. Exs. C and D).
12. Prior to conversion, Avis Walker possessed a rating
factor of 6 in all nine individual subcategories within
Summary I, whereas Petitioner received a rating factor of 6
in only six subcategories, a rating factor of 5 in two
subcategories and a rating factor of 4 in the remaining
subcategory within Summary I. (Jt. Exs. C, D).
13. In Summary II, Walker received the highest rating
factor of 7 in one category, two rating factors of 6 and two
rating factors of 5. In contrast, Petitioner did not
receive any rating factor of 7 in any subcategory within
Summary II. She did, however, receive three rating factors
of 6 and two rating factors of 5. (Jt. Exs. C and D).
14. Avis Walker possessed a preconversion rating of
6.00 for Summary I and a rating of 5.8 for Summary II.
Petitioner possessed a preconversion rating of 5.56 for
Summary I and a rating of 5.6 for Summary II. Walker's
scores for the first two summaries were higher than
Petitioner's score in the same areas. (Jt. Exs. C and D).
15. Respondent district applied the Glen conversion to
every subcategory within the summaries. The ratings were
then summed up and divided by the number of categories to
determine the average rating of each summary area. In turn,
these average summary ratings were totalled and divided by
three (the number of summaries) to reach the final average
rating for each individual teacher. (Jt. Exs. C and D).
16. Once converted, Walker's scores in Summaries I and
II remained higher than Petitioner's scores. (Jt. Exs. C
and D).
17. Respondent's calculations of Petitioner's ratings
under the selected method of conversion are accurate. (Jt.
Exs. C and D).
Discussion
Pursuant to a Commissioner's order, Respondent district
converted Petitioner's first 1984-85 evaluation from a seven
point scale to a five point scale by multiplying the
original scores by five-sevenths (5/7), and rounding off to
integers. This method of conversion is known to the parties
as Glen's conversion. (FF 8).
Using this conversion method, Respondent district then
converted every score for each subcategory of the evaluation
and tallied the scores to reach an average for the teachers.
Under this method of calculation, Petitioner did not reach
the requisite score for placement on level two of the Career
Ladder. The use of Glen's conversion and its application,
however, is not arbitrary and capricious. Respondent's
decision to convert seven ratings into five by multiplying
the original seven by five-sevenths is rational and a
reasonable act.
Petitioner, however, feels she is unfairly penalized
and submits the use of a different method of conversion that
would multiply each of the seven point numbers by
five-sevenths (5/7) and round off to two decimal places as
an alternative remedy. Like the district with Glen's
conversion, Petitioner would apply her conversion system to
every subcategory to tally up an average. Under this method
of calculation, Petitioner would receive the requisite score
for placement on level two of the Career Ladder. While this
avenue may be favorable for Petitioner, Respondent district
is not required to select a particular course of action,
such as rounding off to two decimal places, to ensure an
individual's placement, when there are several options
available. Indeed, in her response to Respondent's motion
for summary judgment, Petitioner indicates that Respondent
is not legally bound to use the "Weighted Conversion"
suggested by Petitioner's representative during local
proceedings. By the same token, Respondent is not legally
bound to utilize only one particular method from a variety
of options so long as the method actually selected is
rational, has a reasonable basis and is not arbitrarily
applied.
In this case, Respondent had a choice in deciding which
method of conversion to implement and the calculations under
its method of conversion are accurate. The fact that the
district did not choose a method that favored Petitioner
does not make such method arbitrary and capricious.
Petitioner's arguments are not persuasive. Accordingly, it
is hereby ordered that Petitioner's motion for summary
judgment is denied and that Respondent's motion for summary
judgment is granted.
Conclusions of Law
After due consideration of the record, matters
officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact, in
my capacity as State Commissioner of Education, I make the
following Conclusions of Law:
1. Respondent's use and application of the Glen's
conversion method is not arbitrary and capricious.
2. The Glen conversion method does not unfairly
penalize Petitioner.
3. Respondent is not legally bound to implement the
alternative methods of conversion suggested by Petitioner.
4. Petitioner's motion for summary judgment is denied.
5. Respondent's motion for summary judgment is
granted.
O R D E R
After due consideration of the record, matters
officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, in my capacity as State Commissioner of
Education, it is hereby
ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for summary judgment
be, and is hereby, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondent's Motion for Summary
Judgment be, and is hereby, GRANTED.
SIGNED AND ISSUED this ______ day of ________________,
1990.
______________________________
W. N. KIRBY
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION