#192-R10-489
--
DOCKET NO. 192-R10-489
ERNESTINE HATTER
+
V.
MOODY INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT
BEFORE THE STATE
+
+
+
+
+
+
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
THE STATE OF TEXAS
DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER
Statement of the Case
Petitioner Ernestine Hatter appeals the decision of the
Moody Independent School District board of trustees,
Respondent, to deny her credit on Domain V, Criterion 12(b)
following the overturning of the underlying campus policy.
Joan Howard Allen is the Hearing Officer appointed by
the State Commissioner of Education. Petitioner is
represented by Daniel A. Ortiz, Attorney at Law, Arlington,
Texas. Respondent is represented by Jerry P. Campbell,
Attorney at Law, Waco, Texas.
The parties submitted the cause on agreed stipulations
of fact and trial briefs.
On December 13, 1990, the Hearing Officer issued a
Proposal for Decision recommending that Petitioner's appeal
be denied. Exceptions and replies were timely filed.
Findings of Fact
After due consideration of the evidence and matters
officially noticed, in my capacity as Interim State
Commissioner of Education, I make the following Findings of
Fact:
1.
Petitioner was employed at the time of the events
in controversy as a teacher for the Moody Independent School
District. (Stip., Ex. E).
2.
Respondent Moody ISD is an independent school
district of the State of Texas. (Stip.).
3.
Petitioner is a "person" as defined by 19 T.A.C.
+157.2 and has a contested case as provided for in 19 T.A.C.
+157.1(a), which constitutes an appeal from a decision of the
Moody ISD board of trustees. (Stip.).
4.
With the implementation of House Bill 72 in 1984,
Respondent board of trustees was required to implement the
state mandated career ladder system, Tex. Educ. Code +13.301
et seq.; Respondent also utilizes the state-approved
appraisal instrument for evaluating its teachers'
performance. (Stip.).
5.
Petitioner is presently on level one of the career
ladder. (Stip.).
6.
On or about September 13, 1988, Petitioner's
building principal, O. J. Erlund, distributed a memorandum
to the teachers of Moody Elementary School stating that
teacher attendance at PTA meetings was required unless
advance permission was obtained. (Stip., Ex. A).
7.
Petitioner, after her receipt of the September 13,
1988 memorandum, informed Principal Erlund, in writing, that
she had prior commitments on Tuesday and Thursday evenings
and because of the same, would not be able to attend the PTA
meetings. (Stip., Ex. A).
8.
Paragraph 7 of Petitioner's contract with
Respondent provides that Petitioner shall comply with all
state and federal law, District policies, rules,
regulations, and administrative directives, as they exist or
may hereafter be amended. (Stip., Ex. E).
9.
Prior to the 1988-89 school year, it was expected
and strongly recommended by the administration that all
elementary school teachers in the school district attend PTA
meetings, but junior high and high school teachers were not
asked to attend since Moody ISD does not have active junior
high or high school PTA associations. (Stip.).
10.
By memorandum dated October 10, 1988, Principal
Erlund reiterated his campus requirement for PTA attendance
and stated it was considered part of Criterion 12, Indicator
(b) of the Texas Teacher Appraisal Instrument (TTAS).
(Stip., Ex. B).
11.
Petitioner did not attend either the September 13,
1988 or the October 11, 1988 PTA meetings at Moody
Elementary School. (Stip.).
12.
Petitioner was evaluated by Principal Erlund on
October 25, 1988, wherein he withheld credit for Petitioner
in Domain V, Criterion 12(b), "follows district/campus
policies/procedures" because Petitioner had not attended the
campus PTA meetings. (Stip., Ex. C).
13.
Petitioner timely filed her grievance regarding
the denial of credit on her October 25, 1988 evaluation.
(Stip.).
14.
Superintendent Marcus Anderson, at the direction
of the Moody ISD board of trustees, responded to
Petitioner's level four grievance by letter dated February
21, 1989 and rescinded Principal Erlund's stated requirement
concerning mandatory PTA attendance; however, credit for the
withheld point on Petitioner's October 25, 1988 evaluation
was not granted. (Stip., Ex. D).
15.
Petitioner timely filed her Petition for Review.
(Stip.).
16.
Respondent timely filed its Answer. (Stip.).
Discussion
Petitioner challenges the decision to deny her credit
on her evaluation on five bases: 1) PTA meetings are
extracurricular and cannot be considered in the appraisal
process under Tex. Educ. Code +13.318; 2) Petitioner's 14th
Amendment rights are violated when she is required to attend
PTA meetings at the elementary level and junior high school
and high school teachers are not; 3) in the absence of a
board policy, the principal did not have the authority to
issue the PTA directive; 4) the attendance requirement
indirectly forces Petitioner to join an organization in
contravention of Tex. Educ. Code +21.904; and 5) the
requirement abridges Petitioner's right to refuse to join an
organization under Tex. Educ. Code +13.217.
Petitioner's challenge as to the asserted
"extracurricular" nature of PTA meetings is not supported by
case law or by agency definition. T.A.C. +97.113(m) provides some
guidance by defining the
term extracurricular activities as "school-sponsored
activities which are not directly related to instruction of
essential elements, but they may have an indirect relation
to some areas of the curriculum. ...Activities may include,
but are not limited to, performance, contests,
demonstrations, displays, and club activities.
Clearly, PTA meetings,
during which parents and teachers have an opportunity to
discuss a student's performance or the academic program,
relates directly to the curriculum. Petitioner's first
challenge is without merit.
Petitioner's assertion that her 14th Amendment rights
are violated because only the elementary teachers are
required to participate in PTA meetings is similarly without
merit. Respondent has stated a rational basis for the
distinction, in that the junior high and high schools do not
have active PTA programs.
Petitioner next contends that the principal did not
have the authority to require attendance in absence of a
board policy. However, Petitioner's contract requires her
to comply with administrative directives. Further, the
campus principal has broad authority to operate the campus.Tex. Educ.
Code 21.913 provides that public school
principals are responsible for assuming administrative
responsibility and instructional leadership for operation
and evaluation of the educational program of the membership
area to which he or she is assigned.
Petitioner asserts that the principal's directive has
forced her to join an organization. However, the directive
says nothing about joining the PTA; it simply implements a
mechanism for making teachers available to parents on a
regular basis. Petitioner's points are without merit.
In her Exceptions, Petitioner cites career ladder
decisions as support for her position with regard to
extracurricular activities. However, this appeal challenges
an appraisal rating, which has long been held to be a
separate issue from career ladder placement.
Petitioner has not presented a legal challenge
requiring the substitution of the Commissioner's opinion for
that of the local board with regard to the denial of credit
for Domain V, Criterion 12(b).. Petitioner's appeal should
be denied.It is also noteworthy that the Commissioner has addressed
the impropriety of local board of trustees modifying TTAS
ratings in Navarro v. Ysleta ISD, et al., No. 007-R8-988
(Comm'r Educ. January 1991).
Conclusions of Law
After due consideration of the record, matters
officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact, in
my capacity as Interim Commissioner of Education, I make the
following Conclusions of Law:
1.
Respondent did not violate Petitioner's 14th
Amendment rights.
2.
Respondent did not violate Tex. Educ. Code
++13.317, 13.318 or 21.904.
3.
Respondent's decision not award Petitioner credit
on Domain V, Criterion 12(b) was not arbitrary or capricious
or unlawful.
4.
Petitioner's appeal should be DENIED.
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 Interim State
Commissioner of Education, it is hereby
ORDERED that Petitioner's appeal be, and is hereby,
DENIED.
SIGNED AND ISSUED this ______ day of ________________,
1991.
___________________________________
THOMAS E. ANDERSON, JR.
INTERIM COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION