TEA DOCKET 073-LH-304
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Petitioner
V.
SHARON SHELLEY-GREEN,
Respondent
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
BEFORE A CERTIFIED
HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE CERTIFIED HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
I.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This appeal is from the March 5, 2004, proposed termination of Ms. Sharon Shelley-Green
by the Houston Independent School District [“HISD” and/or “the District”]. At the time of this
proposed termination, Ms. Shelley-Green was a teacher at Gregg Elementary School on a one-year
term contract. The basis of the proposed termination is as follows:

immorality;

code of ethics violations;

failure to comply with official directives and established school board policy; and

good cause.1
Specifically, HISD asserts that Ms. Shelley-Green acted immorally with a student, Josue M., by
grabbing his work papers, ripping them apart, and then grabbing him by the chin and/or face in a
forceful manner, and screaming at him. HISD also asserts that good cause exists to terminate Ms.
Shelley-Green for the failure to comply with official directives and established school board policy
pertaining to the discipline of students.
“Good cause is defined as “the failure of [Ms. Shelley-Green] 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.”
Tex. Ed. Code §21.156.
1
In compliance with Tex. Ed. Code §21.251 et seq., Ms. Shelley-Green requested a hearing
before a Certified Hearing Examiner. Ms. Thelma Elizalde was appointed by the Commissioner of
Education to: 1] conduct the hearing; 2] make written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law;
and 3] make a Recommendation to the Houston Independent School District Board of Education
[“the Board”]. Mr. James T. Fallon, Attorney at Law, represented Ms. Shelley-Green at the hearing
conducted on May 26 and June 1, 2004. Mr. Mario T. Vasquez, Assistant General Counsel for
HISD, represented HISD.
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background
1.
Ms. Sharon Shelley-Green is employed as an HISD teacher on a one year term contract.
[Pet. 2; Tr. 406].
2.
During the 2003-04 school year, Ms. Shelley-Green taught special education resource
classes at Gregg Elementary School. [Tr. 28, 406].
3.
Ms. Shelley-Green has approximately 17 years of teaching experience; eight years with
HISD. [Tr. 405-406]. She received good teaching evaluations and focused on her
students’ education. [Res. 1; Tr. 88].
4.
Mr. Brian McDonald was the principal at Gregg Elementary School during the 20032004 school year. [Tr. 25]. He has approximately 11 years of experience with HISD; six
of those years in administration. [Tr. 25, 70-71].
5.
Josue M. and his two brothers, Alan and Eric M., are triplets and were enrolled at Gregg
Elementary School during the 2003-04 school year. [Tr. 395-396].
6.
The three brothers were assigned to Ms. Shanda Nakia Walker’s homeroom, which was
also referred to as their regular class. [Tr. 396].
7.
The three brothers also reported to Ms. Shelley-Green’s resource class for three hours a
day at different times for additional instruction. [Tr. 418-419].
8.
Ms. Shelley-Green and Ms. Walker had an arrangement that provided for the three M.
brothers to either be dropped off at the resource class after lunch or to be released from
Ms. Walker’s class to report to resource. This arrangement rendered mixed results in
getting the M. brothers to report to the resource class. [Tr. 419-423, 477-481].
2
9.
According to Principal Brian McDonald, the standard practice for students leaving one
classroom for another classroom, such as from a regular classroom to a resource
classroom, would be to have the homeroom teacher release the students to proceed to the
other class. [Tr. 30, 60, 96-99, 100-101].
The Incident
10.
On November 19, 2003, Josue M. and his brothers failed to report to their resource class
by 1:00 p.m. [Pet. 4; Tr. 423-426].
11.
The triplets had missed too many days of resource and Ms. Shelley-Green believed that
they just decided not to come. [Tr. 424].
12.
At approximately 1:15 p.m., Ms. Shelley-Green decided to take her entire class to Ms.
Walker’s class to pick up the three students after they failed to report to her class. [Pet. 4;
Tr. 423, 425, 477].
13.
Once the class returned to the resource classroom, Ms. Shelley-Green assigned the three
M. brothers 200 sentences to be completed as homework for their failure to report to class
on time. [Pet. 4; Tr. 427-428].
14.
Ms. Shelley-Green asked for the triplet’s homework. Josue M. did not have his
homework, so she assigned him an additional 100 sentences for not having it. [Pet. 4; Tr.
429].
15.
Ms. Shelley-Green then proceeded to teach the day’s lesson. She noticed that Josue M.
was writing his homework sentences in class so she picked the paper up and tore it up in
front of the whole class. [Pet. 4; Tr. 430-431].
16.
Ms. Shelley-Green became aggravated with Josue M. when he started writing the
homework sentences again. [Pet. 4; Tr. 497].
17.
Ms. Shelley-Green stopped the lesson for a break. She directed the students, except for
Josue M., to line up outside the door because she intended to discipline Josue M., but did
not want to do so in front of the class. [Pet. 4; Tr. 432-434].
18.
When Josue M. realized that Ms. Shelley-Green was going to call his mother, he looked
as if he wanted to cry. This emotional response caused Ms. Shelley-Green to forego the
phone call and address the matter herself. [Tr. 434-435].
19.
Ms. Shelley-Green confronted Josue M. with his behavior and the consequences of his
behavior. During the confrontation, Ms. Shelley-Green yelled at Josue M. and grabbed
his chin, causing him to cry and become fearful. [Pet. 5a, 6, 7; Tr. 134, 174, 181, 183186, 205, 291, 300, 304, 435-437].
3
20.
Alan and Eric M. witnessed Ms. Shelley-Green grab Josue M. by the chin when they
looked through the glass panel on the door. [Pet. 6, 7; Tr. 174, 215].
21.
Red marks were on Josue M.’s face after the incident. [Tr. 174, 204-205, 215-220].
22.
Ms. Shelley-Green continued to discipline Josue M. by making him walk the line in the
school hallway and eventually brought him back into the room. Shen then placed him in
the time-out area. [Pet. 4, 5a, 6, 7; Tr. 300, 437-441].
23.
After school, Alan M. told his older sister, Guadalupe M. Cruz, that Josue M. had gotten
in trouble with Ms. Shelley-Green. Ms. Cruz asked Josue M. what happened and after
learning of the incident, she took all three brothers back to school to complain to
Principal McDonald. [Tr. 31-33].
24.
Mr. McDonald met with Ms. Cruz and the three brothers and heard the initial complaint.
He asked Josue M. to tell him what happened. [Tr. 38].
25.
Mr. McDonald asked Josue M. to write down what happened with Ms. Shelley-Green.
[Tr. 35-36]. His brothers were separated and were also asked to write down their account
of what happened. [Tr. 38].
26.
Mr. McDonald examined Josue M.’s face and observed reddened areas on his cheeks,
chin, and jaw area and stated that he clearly saw finger marks on both cheeks. [Pet. 3; Tr.
34, 320].
27.
Mr. McDonald called the school nurse, Patricia M. Hayes, so that she could examine
Josue M., and Ms. Hayes examined Josue M. about ten to fifteen minutes later. She
observed inflamed and reddened areas along the student’s mid-cheeks and jaw line. [Pet.
3, 8; Tr. 109-110].
28.
On November 20, 2003, Mr. McDonald continued his investigation by informing Ms.
Shelley-Green of the allegations, and interviewing each of the students in her classroom
separately. [Pet. 3, 4, 5a, 6, 7, 13; Res. 4, 5, 6; Tr. 41-45, 226-228, 333-334].
29.
Ms. Shelley-Green admitted that she did take Josue M. by the face to get him to look at
her when she met with Principal McDonald the following morning. [Pet. 3; Tr. 42, 69,
90-91, 338-339].
30.
Mr. McDonald’s investigative report confirmed the allegations that Ms. Shelley-Green
grabbed Josue M. by the chin during the disciplinary incident. [Pet. 3; Tr. 44-47, 101102].
31.
Ms. Shelley-Green physically grabbed Josue M. by the chin with enough force to leave
finger marks, yelled loud enough to make him fearful and to cry, then made him walk the
hallway, screamed at him again, and put him in time-out. [Pet. 5a, 8; Tr. 34-35, 109110, 114, 122-123, 125, 129, 134].
4
Previous Directive
32.
Ms. Shelley-Green advised Mr. McDonald that she had been involved in a similar
incident with a student at Gregg Elementary School in 2001 that had resulted in a twoday suspension without pay. [Pet. 15, 16; Tr. 54-56, 111].
33.
As a result of the 2001 incident, Ms. Shelley-Green received a written directive placing
her on notice that corporal punishment is prohibited by HISD Board Policy FO [LOCAL]
and …“to find ways to discipline students with dignity and to avoid any inappropriate
methods for disciplining students. You are directed to follow HISD policy and the Code
of Student Conduct at all times.” [Pet. 15].
34.
Ms. Shelley-Green was also placed on notice that her failure to follow the directives
would lead to disciplinary action, up to and including her termination with the district.”
[Pet. 15, 18 [see Section on “Employee Responsibilities,” Item 9]].
35.
Mr. McDonald recommended termination of Ms. Shelley-Green’s term contract with the
District because she had been previously directed to comply with all Board policies and
the Code of Student Conduct in disciplining students, and she failed to do so. [Pet. 10,
14, 15, 16; Tr. 54-56].
36.
Mr. McDonald also recommended termination of Ms. Shelley-Green’s term contract with
the District because she violated HISD’s corporal punishment policy. The basis for his
recommendation was Josue M.’s statement, which was corroborated by Alan and Eric M.
He also considered Ms. Shelley-Green’s initial statement to him that she took Josue M.
by the face to get him to look at her.
37.
HISD Student Discipline Policy FO (Local) prohibits corporal punishment. [Pet. 20].
HISD’s Student Code of Conduct also prohibits corporal punishment as a disciplinary
option. [Pet. 11].
38.
HISD Employee Standards of Conduct Policy DH (Local) prohibits immorality or
“…conduct that 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.” [Pet. 18].
39.
HISD Employee Standards of Conduct Policy DH (Local) states that all District
employees shall adhere to the code of conduct set out in the Code of Ethics and Standard
Practices for Texas Educators. [Pet. 18, 19]. These standards of conduct require
educators to:
 adhere to written local board policies;
 not engage in physical mistreatment of students; and
 not knowingly treat students in a manner that adversely affects the students’
learning, physical or mental health or safety.” [Pet. 19].
5
40.
When Ms. Shelley-Green physically grabbed Josue M. by the chin with enough force to
leave red marks on his face and yelled at him loud enough to make him cry, she violated
HISD Employee Standards of Conduct Policy DH (Local), the Student Code of Conduct
and HISD policies on Student Discipline, Policy FO (Local).
41.
When Ms. Shelly-Green physically grabbed Josue M. by the chin with enough force to
leave red marks on his face and yelled at him loud enough to make him cry, she violated
a previously issued directive. These acts also constitute immorality under HISD’s
policies.
42.
Richard Lane, a human resource educational expert, established that assuming the
allegations are true, the actions of Ms. Shelly-Green constitute good cause for termination
in similarly situated school districts in Texas. [Tr. 366-373, 383-384, 386-390].
43.
HISD has good cause to terminate Ms. Shelley-Green’s term contract.
44.
The District is not prohibited from initiating disciplinary proceedings against an
employee pursuant to Tex. Educ. Code § 22.0512 or Tex. Penal Code § 9.62, because the
District has a corporal punishment policy and falls under the exception provided in
subsection [c] of the statute. [Pet. 22; also refer to Attorney General’s Opinion GA0202; Tr. 365-366].
III.
DISCUSSION
There are two issues in this case: (1) did the conduct exhibited by Ms. Shelley-Green
during the 2003-2004 school year reach the level of good cause sufficient to justify termination,
and (2) did Ms. Shelley-Green fail to comply with official directives and established school
board policy during the 2003-2004 school year?
Good cause.
Good cause for termination exists in cases where a teacher violates the school district
policy on corporal punishment. See Boyd v. Lake Travis ISD, Docket No. 153-R2-696 (Comm’r
Educ. 1996). In fact, one single violation of a corporal punishment policy is good cause to
terminate a teacher’s contract. See Gibson v. Karnack ISD, Docket No. 037-R2-101 (Comm’r
Educ.; Ruiz-Garcia v. Houston ISD, Docket No. 049-R2-1199 (Comm’r Educ. 2000).
6
The test to determine whether good cause exists to terminate a teacher for acts against
students is, “if a teacher’s actions are inappropriate and potentially harmful to a student, [then] the
district does not need to risk reoccurrences and possible severe injury to a student.” Guerra v. San
Diego ISD, Docket No. 147-R2-796 (Comm’r Educ. 1996); Degnan v. Texas School for the Deaf,
Docket No. 142-R2-684 (Comm’r Educ. 1986). This is called the “significant harm” test.
In Guerra, a 20-year teacher who performed well in the classroom physically assaulted
students. In one instance, the teacher removed a student’s baseball cap and jokingly swatted the
student with the cap. The teacher also struck another student with an open palm and then slapped
the student. The Commissioner stated, “The physical contact in and of itself constitutes significant
harm.” Therefore, good cause existed to terminate the teacher’s contract. Guerra v. San Diego ISD,
Docket No. 147-R2-796 (Comm’r Educ. 1996).
Similarly, Ms. Shelley-Green received good teaching evaluations. [Res. 1]. Her principal,
Mr. McDonald, testified that she was the kind of employee that focused on the education of her
students.” [Tr. 88]. However, like the teacher in Guerra, Ms. Shelley-Green engaged in conduct
that was inappropriate and potentially harmful to students. In particular, on November 19, 2003,
she disciplined her student, Josue M. by:




yelling at him loud enough to frighten him and make him cry;
grabbing him by the chin, cheeks, and jaw with enough force to leave his face red
and inflamed;
directing him to physically walk a line outside the classroom; and
ordering him to time-out. [Pet. 5a, 8; Tr. 34-35, 109-110, 114, 122-123, 125, 129,
134].
The term “corporal punishment” means physical punishment administered by the teacher to
discipline students. Ruiz-Garcia v. Houston ISD, Docket No. 049-R2-1199 (Comm’r Educ. 2000).
Ms. Shelley-Green’s physical contact with Josue M. in an effort to discipline him violated HISD
7
policies regarding corporal punishment. The physical contact itself was inappropriate and harmful,
thus meeting the requirements of the significant harm test.
Ms. Shelley-Green admitted that she was aggravated with Josue M. because he began to
write his homework sentences in class. [Tr. 497]. Initially, she grabbed his paper and tore it in two.
[Tr. 431]. When that action did not stop him from continuing with the sentences, she stopped the
class and directed her students to leave the classroom so she could discipline Josue M. [Tr. 431432]. Her students knew she was going to discipline Josue M. because she stated, “Let’s all go to
the line except Josue M. You’re going to call your mom.” [Tr. 432]. Although her intent was to
have Josue M. call his mother, she opted instead to handle the matter herself. [Tr. 435]. Her
students heard Ms. Shelley-Green yell at Josue M. and heard him cry. Josue M.’s two brothers, Eric
and Alan M., looked through the door’s glass panel and saw Ms. Shelley-Green grab Josue M. by
the chin and they saw him cry. Ms. Shelley-Green admitted that she used elevated tones when
disciplining Josue M. [Tr. 436, 494] but denied the allegation that she physically grabbed Josue M.
by the chin. [Tr. 486]. This position is consistent with her written statement to Mr. McDonald
following the incident. [Pet. 4]. However, her position is inconsistent with her oral statement given
to Mr. McDonald wherein she admitted holding Josue M.’s chin so that he would pay attention to
her as she spoke to him. [Pet. 3; Tr. 42]. When asked about the inconsistency of her statements,
Ms. Shelley-Green stopped short of calling Mr. McDonald a liar and insisted that he must have
misunderstood her. [Tr. 492-493]. Unfortunately, she failed to offer any other persuasive evidence
that would support her position. She simply denies the allegation of physical punishment and
charges Mr. McDonald with misunderstanding her oral statement to him. [Tr. 492-493].
Ms. Shelley-Green did offer two student witnesses, Rudy P. and Kerry W. but both testified
that they did not see the interaction between Ms. Shelley-Green and Josue M. Rudy P. testified that
8
he didn’t see anything because he stayed on the line outside the classroom [Pet. 3; Res. 4; Tr. 289290] and Kerry W. admitted that see he didn’t watch the whole episode and couldn’t see with
everyone else at the door. Both students did confirm, however, that Ms. Shelley-Green yelled at
Josue M., made him cry, directed him to walk the line outside the hallway, and placed him in timeout. [Res. 4, 6; Tr. 304]. Kerry W. also verified that Josue M.’s brothers, Alan and Eric M., were
looking through the glass-paneled door. [Tr. 298]. Thus, the witnesses that could have bolstered
Ms. Shelley-Green’s testimony about what happened with Josue M. ultimately did little more than
confirm the sequence of events. These factors hinder the credibility of Ms. Shelley-Green’s story.
Conversely, Josue M.’s version of what transpired on November 19, 2003, i.e. that Ms.
Shelly-Green tore up his work papers, screamed in his face, made him cry, and grabbed him by the
chin hard enough to leave red marks, was corroborated by other eye witnesses. Alan and Eric M.’s
testimony regarding Ms. Shelley-Green’ conduct toward Josue M. was consistent during the
following discussions:



when they told their sister, Guadalupe Cruz, what happened to Josue M. at school;
during an informal investigation by Principal McDonald; and
by testimony during this hearing.
[Pet. 3, 5a, 6, 7]. [See generally Tr. 174-176, 183-84, 188, 203-205, 217, 224, 225]. Although
consistency is not a determinative factor for truthfulness, it does bear significant weight when
contrasted against Ms. Shelley-Green’s testimony.
Therefore, despite her good performance evaluation, Ms. Shelley-Green’s use of
excessive and unreasonable force with Josue M. violates HISD’s corporal punishment policy and
fails the significant harm test. Thus, good cause exists to terminate her contract.
9
Code of Ethics.
Violating the standards of professional conduct by disparaging a student is per se grounds
for termination. Adams v. Gregory-Portland Independent School District, Docket No. 024-R21088 (Comm’r Educ. 1990); Ramirez at pp. 7-8. An educator should never deliberately
embarrass a child. Green v. Irving Independent School District, Docket No. 042-R2-1086
(Comm’r Educ. 1998). HISD Board Policy DH (Local) emphasizes that educators must comply
with the Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators (“Code of Ethics”) whereby
educators are not expected to physically mistreat students or treat them in a way that adversely
affects their learning, physical health, mental health, or safety. [Pet. 18, 19].
Applying the foregoing to the present case, it is clear that Ms. Shelley-Green violated
professional conduct standards and the Code of Ethics. She used poor judgment when she took
her entire class to get the three brothers from their homeroom. This action was purposeful in its
efforts to embarrass the three brothers in front of the whole class. Ms. Shelly-Green then singled
out Josue M. by:







increasing the homework assignment when she learned that he did not have his
homework;
tearing up his work papers in front of the class;
asking the class to leave the classroom so that Josue M. could call his mother;
yelling at him;
grabbing him by the chin;
making him cry; and
making him fearful.
It is clear that Ms. Shelly-Green’s conduct toward Josue M. adversely affected his physical
health, mental health, and safety. Her actions exposed Josue M. to embarrassment, fear, and
disparagement, all of which could undermine his self-esteem and impact his future learning. Her
actions violate HISD’s Employee Standards of Conduct Policy DH (Local) and the Code of
Ethics and are grounds for her termination. [Pet. 18, 19].
10
Attorney General Opinion No. GA-0202.
Ms. Shelley-Green alleges that Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 22.0512 and Tex. Penal Code
Ann. § 9.62 protect teachers from disciplinary proceedings resulting from corporal punishment
violations. HISD opposes this position and argues that § 22.0512 (c) allows a school district to
enforce its approved, corporal punishment policy or bring a disciplinary proceeding against a
professional employee who violates the policy. The Attorney General of Texas, in Opinion No.
GA-0202, clearly holds that …“Section 22.0512 concomitantly allows a school district to bring a
disciplinary proceeding against a professional employee if the employee uses physical force to
punish the child (corporal punishment) contrary to the school district’s policy.” Therefore, this
defense is not available to Ms. Shelley-Green because HISD has an approved corporal
punishment policy. [Pet. 20, 22; Opinion No. GA-0202].
Repeated Failure to Follow Directives.
The Commissioner has held that one violation of a directive even when the directive was
given nine years before the violation constitutes repeated failure to follow directives. Allen v.
Houston ISD, Docket No. 014-R2-1001 (Comm’r Educ. 2001). “Despite the time between the
directive and the action, Petitioner’s [sic] action violated the directive and constitutes a repeated
violation of official directives.” Id.
The ruling in Allen is analogous to the instant case. In 2001, Ms. Shelley-Green was given a
written directive by her assistant principal, Bettye Armstrong, concerning an incident between Ms.
Shelley-Green and a student. [Pet. 15]. In this particular instance, Ms. Shelley-Green admitted that
she had caught a student by the chin to make him look at her; to make eye contact so that she could
get the student to comply with her directives. [Tr. 414-415, 467]. Although Ms. Shelley-Green said
that no force was used, she stated that her intent was to prevail over a student’s defiant behavior or
11
power struggle. [Tr. 409-412]. As a result of the incident, Ms. Shelley-Green was issued a written
directive to comply with the District’s corporal punishment policy, the Code of Student Conduct,
and to “find ways to discipline students with dignity and to avoid any inappropriate methods for
disciplining students.” [Pet. 15]. Ms. Shelly-Green was reminded that “failure to follow directives
will lead to disciplinary action, up to and including the termination of your employment with the
district.” [Pet. 15]. Ms. Shelley-Green testified that she understood the memo as a directive against
the use of any physical force to discipline a student. [Tr. 464].
Despite the 2001 directive, on November 19, 2003, Ms. Shelley-Green grabbed Josue M.
with enough force to leave red marks on his chin, cheeks, and jaw. Her conduct during the 2003
incident violates the same Board policies and written directives that she received in 2001. The fact
that a teacher was disciplined in a prior year for similar behavior indicates that she was on “notice”
that her action was improper, was given time to correct it, and makes her recent conduct more
culpable. Burnett v. Houston Independent School District, Docket No. 172-R2-898 (Comm’r Educ.
1998). To engage in similar action again shows willfulness. Burnett at 4.
Accordingly, Ms. Shelley-Green’s failure to follow directives regarding corporal
punishment is sufficient cause to terminate her contract.
HISD has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that good cause exists to terminate
Ms. Shelley-Green’s term contract. To find otherwise would necessitate placing total reliance on
the testimony of Ms. Shelley-Green to the exclusion of contrary evidence, and in the absence of
substantiating witnesses, or supporting evidence. The evidence confirmed that Ms. ShelleyGreen failed to meet the accepted standards of conduct for the profession. She failed to act as a
person of ordinary prudence would have under similar circumstances.
Her conduct is
inconsistent with the continued existence of the employer-employee relationship.
12
IV.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
After due consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, materials officially
noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact, in my capacity, as a Certified Hearings Examiner for
the State of Texas, I make the following Conclusions of Law:
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction of this subject matter pursuant to Chapter 21,
sub-chapter F, §21.251 (a)(1) of the Tex. Educ. Code.
2. Ms. Shelley-Green was provided a fair and impartial hearing pursuant to Chapter 21,
Subchapter F, of the Tex. Educ. Code.
3. Good cause is defined as “the failure to meet the accepted standards of conduct for the
profession as generally recognized and applied in similarly situated school districts in
this state. §21.156 (a) of the Tex. Educ. Code.
4. HISD established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Ms. Shelley-Green
violated HISD board policy, including the HISD Code of Student Conduct when she
used corporal punishment in her classroom during the 2003-2004 school year.
5. HISD established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Ms. Shelley-Green’s
conduct violated HISD Board Policy regarding immorality by not conforming with
accepted principles of right and wrong behavior and contrary to the moral standards that
are acceptable to HISD.
6. HISD established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Ms. Shelley-Green
violated the Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators by failing to
comply with HISD board policies regarding the physical mistreatment of students.
7. HISD established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Ms. Shelley-Green’s
use of corporal/physical punishment in the classroom during the 2003-04 school year
constituted a repeated failure to follow directives and school board policy.
8. HISD established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that good cause exists
to terminate Ms. Shelley-Green’s term contract.
9. Any conclusion of law deemed to be a finding of fact is hereby adopted as such.
13
V.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is the
Recommendation of the Certified Hearing Examiner that HISD has good cause to terminate Sharon
Shelley-Green’s employment and that Ms. Shelley-Green’s appeal of such termination should be
DENIED.
SIGNED this 8th day of July, 2004.
_______________________________
Thelma Elizalde,
Certified Hearing Examiner
14