Due Process: Navigating Teacher Termination

Abstract

A beloved teacher in a small school district in Texas, with stellar evaluations, faces termination due to a conflict of interest involving a student struggling in the teacher’s Biology class, his influential mother on the educational board, and the high school principal. This case analyzes the influence of power dynamics on decisions, impacting legal rights like due process, and grading policy. Educational leaders will gain insight into due process, grading policy, educational board policy, and how state laws play a pivotal role. This case study serves as a crucial lesson on navigating ethical dilemmas and ensuring fairness in K–12 education.

Characters

Mr. Fern is a White American biology high school teacher in a small school district in Texas. He loved his teaching position and wanted to see his students succeed.

Dr. Doe is the principal of the local high school, where Mr. Fern teaches. She was named principal 2 years ago when the Educational Board hired her. She considers Mrs. Jackson a close friend.

Mrs. Jackson is a member of the Educational Board for a small school district in Texas, where Mr. Fern and Dr. Doe are employed. All her children have attended the local high school, and currently, her youngest son is attending.

Robert is the son of Mrs. Jackson, and he is currently enrolled in Mr. Fern’s biology course.

Case Narrative

Mrs. Jackson’s family lives in a small city in Texas. Her child, Robert, attends the local high school in the nearby district as a freshman. Mrs. Jackson served on the Educational Board of the district and was part of the hiring process for the current sitting principal, Dr. Doe, at the high school that Robert attends. Robert is currently failing his first semester of Biology with Mr. Fern. Mr. Fern has been at this high school for 5 years and has been teaching science courses for 13 years at the high school level. Mr. Fern has presented at various conferences over the years on his teaching strategies and grading philosophy. He recently presented at the district’s professional development conference in the summer leading into the 2022–2023 school year. Over the last 5 years, Mr. Fern has only received outstanding evaluations. Mr. Fern had been recognized as “accomplished” in the T-TESS (Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System) evaluation in the 2021 to 2022 school year within every category under the domain 2 covering instructions as well as domain 3. In domain 3, dimension 3.2, he was given the evaluation of “distinguished.” In the 13 years that Mr. Fern has taught, he has been the two-time recipient of the Teacher of the Year Award with the most recent in the 2021–2022 school year at his current campus.

Robert Jackson

Robert is a current freshman and is a solid C student. During class, Robert often brags about how he can do whatever he wants and can never get in trouble because his mom is on the school board. Roberts’ report card reflects several 70s and a few 80s. In Biology, he is currently making a 58. When reviewing Robert’s disciplinary history, it shows teachers’ referrals for Robert as “distracting other students and not completing his work in class.” These referrals are always entered into the system as warnings, but Robert never faces any school consequences for his actions. Robert has never attended tutorials and is rumored to vape in the restrooms in the mornings with friends instead.

In January 2023, Mr. Fern began to send out emails to parents informing them about the outcome of the first semester. Mr. Fern emailed Mrs. Jackson stating that Robert had failed his course for the semester with a 58. In the email, he informed Mrs. Jackson that if Robert made an 82 in the spring semester, he would not have to retake the course as a sophomore. In the email, he relayed that his tutorial sessions are held every morning from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and after school from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. One week after Mr. Fern sent out emails to parents, Dr. Doe requested to hold a conference with Mr. Fern.

Mr. Fern Meets With Dr. Doe

During the conference, Dr. Doe stated that many parents were complaining about his grading policy, as it appeared to not be equitable. During the meeting, Dr. Doe requested to review Mr. Fern’s rubrics for all the assignments over the first 6 weeks. Mr. Fern provided the rubrics to Dr. Doe 1 day later. Dr. Doe reviewed the rubrics of each assignment and asked that Mr. Fern review all the students’ grades to ensure that assignments were graded fairly and equitably.

Dr. Doe mentioned to Mr. Fern a concern that she had with a section of his rubric (the appendix). The section seemed to be ambiguous and could be interpreted by the teacher, however, they felt necessary. Dr. Doe stated that the rubric would need to be updated to provide more specific language, so that the expectations of the assignments are clear and consistent. Before leaving the meeting, Dr. Doe mentioned that Mr. Fern should be aware of the students in his class. She continued by mentioning how Robert’s mother is a current Educational Board member and “that it is important to be on your A game,” especially around a particular student. She highly encouraged Mr. Fern to review and re-grade each of Robert’s assignments in detail. She wanted to make sure Mr. Fern did not miss anything, and that Robert received the grade he deserved as the campus does not want to be under a magnifying glass any more than they already are.

Mr. Fern stated that the grade Robert currently has is accurate. Mr. Fern strongly believed that Robert had not earned anything other than what was in the grade book. He stated to Dr. Doe that Robert never turns in assignments, and the assignments that are submitted are often incomplete. Mr. Fern also stated that he offers tutorials every morning and that if Robert was concerned with his grade, he would come to see him instead of vaping in the restroom with his friends every morning, which he told Dr. Doe in confidence. Dr. Doe expressed her concerns that students would be vaping on her campus but that she knows Robert’s family well and he does not come from the kind of family that would allow such behavior. After the meeting, Mr. Fern emphasized that Robert would need to make an 82 during the second semester to bridge the gap for the 58 earned in the first semester. Mr. Fern also mentioned that he had already emailed parents and if needed a parent conference could be held.

Mr. Fern’s Parent–Teacher Conference

The following week Mr. Fern was asked to join a parent–teacher conference with Dr. Doe to facilitate the conversation between him and Mrs. Jackson. When Mr. Fern arrived Mrs. Jackson and Dr. Doe were already having a discussion. Mr. Fern sat down and began by taking out Robert’s work over the last 2 weeks. He showed Mrs. Jackson that Robert had only completed half of the assigned work thus far and that as of right now he has a 40 for the fourth 6 weeks. Mr. Fern explained that he has attempted to get through to Robert throughout the fall semester but every time he offers feedback or suggestions to Robert, he shrugs him off. Mr. Fern stated that he would be willing to accept the late work but at this time he would be following the district grading policy with late work. He stated that Mrs. Jackson should be familiar with the policy, as she is a member of the board. Mr. Fern provided a printout for late work guidelines to Mrs. Jackson.

For any assignment not turned in on the due date (other than for absence), it will be accepted late up to 3 days after the zero is posted. Students will receive a grade no higher than 75% on 1 day late, up to 60% for 2 days late, and 50% for up to 3 days late. After 3 days, no credit will be given. Late work may not be redone for a higher grade. Decisions concerning “extenuating circumstances” to the 3-day rule will be left to the sole decision of the teacher and the campus principal.

Mrs. Jackson stated that she knows Robert does his work as she observes him every night get work completed. Mrs. Jackson explained to Mr. Fern that Robert has been stating he is turning in his work but that you are not grading his assignments because you do not like him. “It is my understanding that Robert is only failing your class currently and does not get in trouble in any other class except for yours.” Mrs. Jackson provided a printout that showed Mr. Fern is the only teacher to have written up Robert with a referral all year for distracting other students and being off task. Mr. Fern replied calmly explaining that he does not know or ever holds any grudges against students. He also mentioned that he has tried to convince Robert multiple times to join tutorials, providing him with feedback on how to improve his assignments and opportunities to redo his assignments. It is his responsibility to provide feedback and prepare students for the Biology STAAR exam. Mrs. Jackson, visibly upset, states “Then why do you accuse my son of vaping in the restroom instead of going to tutorials?” Mr. Fern replies stating that he is a teacher on campus, not an administrator. He continues saying he has reported rumors to his administrators many times about students vaping in the restrooms and beyond that he does not have any control over which students may or may not get caught in that situation. Dr. Doe intervened and began to explain that the conversation was veering off-topic and that everyone in the room was there for Robert and his success in the classroom. After the meeting, Dr. Doe explained to Mrs. Jackson that Robert could attend tutorials in the morning and the afternoon with Mr. Fern to get his grades back on track.

Dr. Doe’s Evaluation of Mr. Fern

During the remaining 6 weeks, Mr. Fern noticed that Dr. Doe was in his classroom performing walkthroughs more frequently than in the first semester. He suspected it was because Dr. Doe and Mrs. Jackson were friends but could not confirm anything was purposeful. Mr. Fern also noticed that the feedback he received on his T-TESS walkthroughs changed in tone, as now he was receiving negative feedback about his performance. His negative feedback was directed at the rubric which he used the prior year and his classroom management. Last year, he was praised for how efficiently his rubrics were being implemented as students had access to early feedback, which was provided swiftly. This year his feedback stated that grades were not being put into the system in a timely way and students were often off task due to poor classroom management. The following weeks Robert attended tutorials in the morning for approximately 5 minutes and then told Mr. Fern he had to leave to work on other assignments. Robert continued doing poorly in the class and is about to receive a D as his fourth 6-week grade. Just like last semester, Mr. Fern tried to convince Robert to join tutorials, but Robert decided that he would ignore these chances. Robert continued with that trajectory in the spring as the fourth 6 weeks concluded.

Mr. Fern is strict about following school and state policy. He is making sure to grade Robert on the mastery of the materials and provide Robert with opportunities to make up the assignments and improve his grade. Based on the school district policy, teachers are suggested to meet with failing student’s parents/guardians after progress reports come out. As Mr. Fern had done in the fall, he again emailed Mrs. Jackson stating:

Robert had not attended tutorial in the morning except for about 5 minutes. He always leaves class saying he must work on other assignments. Robert’s grade in the class for the 4th six weeks will be a 60. If Robert does not wish to retake Biology during his sophomore year, he will now have to make a 93 for the remaining six weeks. If the last four six weeks are any indication of his work, I do not anticipate him passing the course for the year. I recommend he continue to attend tutorials and may need to seek outside tutoring, as this class is again a STAAR-tested subject and required to pass to graduate.

Later that same week, Mrs. Jackson posted on Facebook, “NOBODY ACCUSES MY SON OF VAPING! When a teacher fails my child, expect to face consequences. I am not a happy momma!” This post was taken down an hour later. One of the other teachers on campus is friends with Mr. Fern and Mrs. Jackson and saw the post. The teacher informed Mr. Fern that they thought it might be directed at them even though no names were mentioned. At the end of the year, Dr. Doe and the school board terminated Mr. Fern’s contract, before the end date stated on the legal contract document. On the termination slip, it states that Mr. Fern’s ties with the school board are severed due to the negative evaluation. Mr. Fern suspected this was because of Dr. Doe’s relationship with Mrs. Jackson.

Mr. Fern Finds Out About the Termination

Mr. Fern never knew about the termination, until he was handed the termination document. The document included reasons as to why he was being terminated. The document stated that Mr. Fern repeatedly failed to comply with campus expectations and district policy, with respect to documenting a student’s performance. Failed to contact parents within a reasonable time after students failed as per the grading policy. These failures resulted in inadequate student progress. The district moved forward with terminating his employment under ECS 21.156 stating good cause. He was quite shocked to see that he was being let go of his teaching position. He understands that he received a couple of poor evaluations but did not think those outweighed the past 5 years of outstanding evaluations he received. It was upsetting for Mr. Fern to witness that Dr. Doe never reached out to create a plan with him to improve in the long run. He also felt that the termination was sudden and without any warnings. He never received any notification or signs during the academic year that he was losing his job. Regardless of the situation, Mr. Fern proceeded to follow the instructions to file a date for his hearing. As time went by, Mr. Fern did not receive any communication about his hearing date. After reaching out to the district, Mr. Fern finds out that he was denied a hearing. He reached out to his connections to get another hearing date, but the school board kept denying his request. Mr. Fern requested a hearing before an independent hearing examiner.

Conclusion

Mr. Fern has decided to request a hearing before an independent hearing examiner. If the examiner concludes that the district was not within their rights to terminate Mr. Fern under Tex. Educ. Code § 21.156 for good cause, the district can then appeal the decision. If the examiner concludes that the district did have good cause then Mr. Fern may appeal the decision to the Commissioner of Education who may reverse the decision if it is “arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful, or is not supported by substantial evidence.

Teaching Notes

Due Process

Due process provides teachers with protection and the opportunity to speak for themselves when they are released from their positions. The Fourteenth Amendment is a significant part of due process. The Fourteenth Amendment states that “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV). This provides legal boundaries for teachers to be treated fairly by providing them with a hearing process. It provides public school districts with guidelines on how to dismiss or terminate a teacher from their position appropriately.

According to Texas Education Code § 21.251 (1995/2011), a teacher who is on a continuing contract can request a hearing after receiving a notice of termination. To appeal the termination, the educator must file a written request for the assignment of an independent hearing examiner within 15 calendar days of receiving the notice (Texas Education Agency [TEA], n.d.). The request must contain a phone number, email address, and mailing address. Also, the educator must provide a copy of the request to the district. The request must also be filed electronically through the TEA’s Division of Hearings and Appeals. Within the sixth business day after the commissioner receives the request, a hearing examiner will be assigned to the case, and all parties will be notified. Once all parties agree on the hearing examiner, the examiner has 60 calendar days from the day of the request to complete the hearing procedures and make a written recommendation. From there, the school board has 10 calendar days after the board meeting to announce their final decision.

Mr. Fern is a public school teacher whose contract was agreed upon a date of conclusion. However, the school district decided to terminate the contract before the set date. Mr. Fern was shocked to see the termination letter without any prior warnings. He never believed that his actions for this academic school year would cause him to lose his position. He also did not understand why Dr. Doe did not try to create a plan with him or discuss with him what may have gone wrong. When he tried to reach out to the district about the due process procedures, he was denied any opportunity for a hearing. So, Mr. Fern tried again, and for the second time, he was denied a hearing. This encouraged him to seek an independent hearing examiner.

While Mr. Fern submitted copies of his hearing request to the district, there seemed to be a lack of communication on their side. Mr. Fern tried to follow the policies and procedures that are provided by the school district. When Mr. Fern submitted the first hearing, and it was denied, he believed it was an error. When he submitted for the second time, he made sure to have copies of the documents and emails for evidence in case anything went wrong. When he was denied for the second time, Mr. Fern understood that the district was no longer interested in hearing his side and did not want to continue their relationship with him. However, Mr. Fern strongly believes that he was denied his rights. He decided to work with an independent hearing examiner. To justify to the courts that his incident was worthy of a case, Mr. Fern had to back his story with supporting facts (Higgenbotham v. Connaster, 2011). Mr. Fern collected evidence from his conversation with Dr. Doe and Mrs. Jackson.

Mr. Fern was abruptly discharged from the school district with only a termination letter and no other proper notification. His administration ignored him and did not provide him with any proper information as to why he was being terminated other than not following campus expectations and district guidelines. The school district never allowed Mr. Fern to explain his side of the story through due process. Mr. Fern had reached out seeking information about the due process and mentioned that he would like to begin his hearing process. However, his requests were ignored. In Coggin v. Longview Indep. Sch. Dist. (2003), in which the teacher was deprived of his property due to a lack of proper due process regulation. Mr. Fern was dismissed from the school district and required to leave without due process at the end of the contract/termination process.

In the beginning, Dr. Doe reached out to Mr. Fern about her concerns about Robert’s grade, though Mr. Fern explained his grading process and was open to feedback to improve. However, was adamant about staying within the district policy and state laws. After the parent–teacher conference meeting. Dr. Doe was more involved in Mr. Fern’s course. Mr. Fern believed that Dr. Doe and Mrs. Jackson had a close personal relationship, but he could not prove this. At the end of the visits, Mr. Fern received a negative T-TESS evaluation of his performance and rubrics. Last year, he was highly praised by Dr. Doe. Mr. Fern did not think adversely about this and continued his job as usual. When he received a termination notice, he did not understand why Dr. Doe did not speak with him about his performance or suggest any plans or next steps to perform better. In Drown v. Portsmouth School District (1970), for a non-renewal to occur the incident must be arbitrary or capricious.

Tex. Educ. Code § 28.0214

In 2010, a Texas Judge upheld the truth in grading law by rejecting arguments from school districts contending that they could still require teachers to give minimum grades on student report cards. (Robelen, 2010). The Texas Education Code § 28.0214 (2003) states an examination or course grade issued by a classroom teacher is final and may not be changed unless the grade is arbitrary, erroneous, or not consistent with the school district grading policy applicable to the grade, as determined by the board of trustees of the school district in which the teacher is employed. During the conference meeting between Mr. Fern and Dr. Doe, Mr. Fern explained that she highly encouraged Mr. Fern to review and re-grade each of Robert’s assignments in detail. Mr. Fern argues that this is a violation of the Texas Education Code § 28.0214. However, Dr. Doe never gave a specific grade criterion for Mr. Fern, just simply stated he needed to re-grade and ensure that the information was correct. Concerning the termination of Mr. Fern due to inadequately following grading policy Dr. Doe references the district grading guidelines that explain she may not require a classroom teacher to assign a minimum grade for an assignment without regard to the student’s quality of work. However, Dr. Doe explains that the teacher did not provide a reasonable opportunity to make up or redo a class assignment or examination for which the student received a failing grade. Mr. Fern argues that he allows students to come in for tutorials every day both before and after school, at which time students could redo assignments. Dr. Doe explains many students on campus are unable to stay late or arrive early as their parents do not have the required transportation. Mr. Fern did not provide a reasonable opportunity for students as in the case with Robert. Robert has never been provided an opportunity to make up the assignment for failing grades as documented in report cards.

Tex. Educ. Code § 21.156

Texas Education Code § 21.156 (1995/2011) states that a teacher employed under a continuing contract may be discharged at any time for good cause as determined by the board of trustees. A good cause is 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. Upon review of Mr. Fern’s STAAR scores throughout the year the district found that roughly 60% of his students failed thus concluding that he was not working in the best interest of students and failed to meet adequate progress for his students. Mr. Fern argued that he teaches resource classes, and that the failure rate of his students is to be expected especially since even though he has requested inclusion support from the administration he has never received help and has continued to teach a general education class with several students with extreme IEP and 504 accommodations. Mr. Fern also notes that as a campus his scores are on par with the other Biology teachers on campus. The Supreme Court of Texas has ruled that a district can terminate a teacher’s contract under TEC § 21.156 (N. E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Riou, 2020). They are not required to provide specific evidence for specific facts only that the code requires evidence of a generally applicable standard. This ruling places the burden on Mr. Fern to prove that he did not fail to meet the accepted standards of conduct.

Abuse of Official Capacity

The Penal Code 39.02 (a) states that a public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, intentionally or knowingly violates a law relating to the office or employment, or misuses government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value, belonging to the government that has come into the public servant’s custody by the person’s office or employment (FindLaw, 2021). Mrs. Jackson is a public servant due to her position as a board member. During the parent–teacher conference, Mrs. Jackson and Mr. Fern were discussing Robert’s grades. Mrs. Jackson believes that Robert is turning in his assignments because she sees him complete homework every night at home. She claims that Mr. Fern has something against her son, due to him being the only teacher complaining about his behavior.

Mr. Fern exclaims that he is trying his best to help Robert, but Robert is not taking any of his advice. Mrs. Jackson continues to claim that Mr. Fern does not care about her son and that Robert has other priorities like vaping in the bathroom. This statement made in confidence to Dr. Doe angers Mrs. Jackson. As the spring semester goes by, Robert is still struggling in Mr. Fern’s class. Robert keeps making excuses about why he cannot stay in tutorials for the full hour and Mr. Fern is losing the motivation to encourage Robert to attend. When Mrs. Jackson received an email about Robert’s current spring semester grade, she strongly believed that Mr. Fern was not qualified to teach science in the district. Out of frustration, Mrs. Jackson uses the district computer to post on her personal Facebook about her displeasure with the accusation of Robert’s vaping.

When Mrs. Jackson posted her message on social media, she was intentionally causing harm to Mr. Fern’s status as a teacher. Even though Mrs. Jackson’s decision was clouded, her actions were premeditated. When she submitted her post, fellow parents began to come forward accusing teachers and providing information on what they believed happened. Mrs. Jackson’s rash action puts Mr. Fern’s job in danger. She also posted her opinion using district property. Even though she broke a penal code, there seem to be zero repercussions for her action. However, Penal Code 39.02(a) does not have any violations. It does have legal repercussions, such as receiving a Class A misdemeanor (FindLaw, 2021).

Classroom Activity

The objective of the classroom activity is to have Educational Leaders analyze ethical implications, such as conflict of interest, lack of due process, and abuse of official capacity. They will be tasked to create effective policies and involve stakeholders in their decisions.

The instructions are as follows:

1. Divide the class into three groups. Assign each group one of the key issues presented in the case narrative section. Group 1 will focus on the conflict of interest between Mrs. Jackson’s role as a parent and board member. Group 2 will focus on the abuse of official capacity by Mrs. Jackson using the district property to post on her Facebook. Finally, group 3 will focus on Mr. Fern’s termination process and due process.

2. Within their groups, students will discuss potential policies and procedures for their key issues. They will also discuss how their policies/procedures will affect stakeholders.

3. Student groups will then present their ideas to the class and explain how they concluded to these recommendations. As a class, students will critically analyze the strengths and weaknesses of each recommendation and the possible challenges or consequences they may face.

Discussion Questions

1. Even if the court finds that due process was not followed is the district still within their rights to terminate?

2. As the school principal, how would you address the conflict of interest between the school board members and the needs of the students on your campus? Would you have continued to evaluate the teacher?

3. If Mr. Fern changed the grade to passing but later regretted his decision and then filed under TEC 28.0214 would he have a stronger or weaker case? Explain

4. Should Mrs. Jackson step down from the school board? As part of the system for due process, she has a significant role.

5. Texas Education Code 21.156 states good cause as being 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. Does this give districts the ability to terminate any employee stating good cause? Does there need to be more specific guidelines as to what defines a good cause? Explain.

6. What legal and ethical issues are presented in the case? Do Mr. Fern’s actions align with or violate the school district’s grading policy? What evidence could be used to support the claim of Mrs. Jackson? Jackson or any other party involved abused their official capacity?

7. Does Mr. Fern or Dr. Doe provide enough evidence to support a failure of TEC § 28.0214 or an inability to follow local district grading policies?