DOCKET NO. 149-LH-0509

DALLAS INDEPENDENT § BEFORE INDEPENDENT

SCHOOL DISTRICT § HEARING EXAMINER

§ MARGARET T. CARRIGAN

Petitioner §

§

§

vs. §

§

STEPHEN BOSSART § TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY

Respondent §

RECOMMENDATION OF THE CERTIFIED HEARING EXAMINER

Statement of Case

Dallas Independent School District, Petitioner, has proposed the termination of Stephen Bossart pursuant to Texas Education Code §39.1324. The recommendation to terminate for good cause was pursuant to Board Policy DF[1] and DEC[2]. The recommendation to terminate the employment was made based on the following policy provisions:

·  Failure or refusal to comply with policies, orders, and directives of the Board, General Superintendent, and/or designees.[3]

·  Any act or conduct while at school, whether in or out of a classroom, which is either indecent, obscene, illegal, cruel, abusive, or is otherwise contrary to and inconsistent with the ordinary standards set by the performance and conduct of the other professional public employees of the District.[4]

·  Failure of the employee to use his or her best efforts in carrying out any one or more of the following areas of professional duties and responsibilities: creating a climate for learning in the classroom.[5]

·  Physical or verbal abuse of students, parents, co-workers, or other persons.[6]

·  Conduct or behavior not otherwise expressly referred to in this policy, either during or off working hours that could cause the public, students, or employees to lose confidence in the administration and integrity of the District.[7]

·  Failure to meet acceptable standards of conduct for employees in like or similar positions, which would make retention of the employee detrimental to the best interests of the District.[8]

·  Any other reason constituting “good cause” under Texas laws.[9]

The recommendation to terminate Stephen Bossart’s employment was made for the following specific reason, including, but not limited to the following:

·  You made abusive and derogatory statements to students, including profanity

·  You have engaged in using inappropriate physical contact with a student (i.e., hitting a student on the head).

Petitioner, Dallas Independent School District, is represented by Mr. J. David Giddens. Respondent, Stephen Bossart, is represented by Mr. James P. Barklow.

Findings of Fact

After consideration of the record and matters officially before this Examiner, the following findings of fact have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence:

  1. Respondent, Stephen Bossart (“Respondent”) has been employed by the Dallas Independent School District (DISD) for approximately fourteen (14) years, eleven (11) of those years as a Computer Applications teacher at Bryan Adams High School.
  2. Respondent was removed from the worksite at Bryan Adams High School in accordance with the DISD Employee Removal Process on February 19, 2009.
  3. Respondent was not given a reason for his removal but was precluded from all DISD campuses.
  4. By letter dated April 23, 2009, Respondent was notified that DISD was recommending that his employment be terminated for good cause.
  5. Prior to February 19, 2009 there was one official notation concerning parent concerns with Respondent and that concern was dated January 21, 2009.
  6. There were no disciplinary actions noted in Respondent’s personal files concerning inappropriate actions by Respondent toward a student prior to February 19, 2009.
  7. All letters of reprimand concerning Respondent are dated after February 19, 2009.
  8. The letters of reprimand were not mailed to Respondent but placed in Respondent’s mailbox at Bryan Adams High School while Respondent was precluded from entering the campus.
  9. One student, T.E. testified on behalf of DISD and that student’s testimony concerned (2) alleged inappropriate statements by Respondent concerning a car and “Oak Cliff” talk.
  10. T. E. denied that she had heard Respondent refer to some students being from the ghetto.[10]
  11. Ms Stephanie Taylor, Assistant Principal of Bryan Adams High School testified that T.E. had said that respondent had made a statement about T.E.’s mother being from the ghetto.[11] Ms Taylor also testified the student had repeated that claim during a conference with Respondent, T.E. T.E.’s mother and Ms Taylor.[12]
  12. As a result of the conference noted in #11, the student was given a directive to behave in class and Respondent was given a directive to refrain from inappropriate comments in class.[13]
  13. No students testified that they had been inappropriately touched or hit by Respondent.
  14. Respondent was viewed as a good teacher who is not racist or abusive.
  15. Teachers from Bryan Adams High School view Respondent as a great teacher who was an asset to his department and the school as a whole.
  16. One student was asked to back date a statement.
  17. One letter of Reprimand was apparently back dated.
  18. Student N.W. previously stated that Respondent had struck him on the head.
  19. Student N.W. sent Respondent a sarcastic, derogatory and cruel e-mail concerning Respondent’s absence from the campus for a large portion of the academic year.[14]
  20. Respondent’s CEIs place him at the top of those rankings at Tier 4 or Tier 5.
  21. All of Respondents evaluations have been proficient or exceeds.
  22. Respondent appealed DISD’s recommendation for termination pursuant to §21.256 of the Texas Education Code.

Discussion

Respondent is employed by DISD as a Computer Applications Instructor. By all accounts, Respondent is a highly intelligent individual who has set the bar high for instruction. Those students instructed by Respondent reflect the knowledge acquired while receiving instruction from him by performing well on tests measuring the knowledge gained. Respondent also places curriculum on the internet that assists other instructors and students and offers help in computer applications to fellow teachers at Bryan Adams High School.

Respondent’s employment history contains several years of working in the private industry. Respondent’s experience in the private sector makes his approach some what different from instructors who have spent their entire careers in the field of education.

According to some testimony there had been complaints concerning Respondent’s classroom demeanor (i.e. cursing and racial remarks); however, his personnel file and evaluations were devoid of evidence of that type of activity. His personnel file displays he had a stellar record and was viewed as brilliant.

When we look at the evidence of what actually happened in the classroom we have the testimony of three students and the testimony of Respondent. The testimony of student T.E. was proffered by DISD; however, the only negative employment practice she testified to was that Respondent had made statements about white people not driving certain cars and “Oak Cliff” talk. T.E. did say that the statements were not made during instruction time and I would surmise that they were off the cuff remarks. Her testimony was void of any statements that Respondent had hit students and she did not confirm the testimony of Assistant Principal Taylor that Respondent had referred to students and/or parents as “ghetto” or being from the “ghetto”. It cannot be ignored that only one student who signed statements testified for DISD, and that one student who signed a statement actually testified for Respondent. Teachers must be cognizant of all statements made to students, they also have to be comfortable with the students and make the students feel comfortable with the teacher.

Five teachers currently assigned to Bryan Adams High School testified that Respondent was an excellent teacher who is highly respected at the school.

Mr. Gibbs stated it well: “this case is about whether or not his actions in the classroom could/should cause him to be removed as a teacher or not.”[15] The facts and testimony does not support a decision for termination of this teacher.

Conclusions of Law

After careful consideration of the record, matters officially noticed and the foregoing Findings, in my capacity as the Certified Hearing Examiner, I make the following Conclusions of Law:

1.  Jurisdiction to hear this case is proper under Texas Education Code Chapter 21, Subchapter F. Section 21.251 (a)(2) of the Texas Education Code.

2.  The Respondent is a teacher as defined by Subchapter E, Section 21.101 and Section 21.201 of the Texas Education Code.

3.  The Respondent was employed as a teacher by DISD pursuant to a term contract as defined in Subchapter E, Section 21.201(3) of the Texas Education Code.

4.  The Respondent was recommended for termination pursuant to the authority in Texas Education Code 39.1324 and the term contract.

5.  Respondent was provided a fair and impartial hearing pursuant to Chapter 21, Subchapter F, of the Texas Education Code.

6.  Good cause for discharging an employee is defined as the employees’ failure to perform the duties in the scope of employment that a person of ordinary prudence would have done under the same or similar circumstances. An employee’s act constitutes good cause for discharge if it is inconsistent with the continued existence of the employer-employee relationship.

7.  Pursuant to his contract Respondent may be terminated for good cause as determined by the Board; however,

8.  The appeal by Respondent was conducted pursuant to Section 21.256 of the Texas Education Code, and the standard of review in determining the findings of fact were based on the “preponderance of the evidence.”

9.  Respondent’s actions in the classroom do not constitute good cause to terminate his contract of employment with the District.

Recommendation

After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings and Conclusions of Law, in my capacity as a Certified Hearings Examiner, it is hereby recommended that the Trustees of Dallas Independent School District not terminate the contract of Stephen Bossart.

SIGNED AND ISSUED this 24th day of August, 2009.

______

Margaret Turner Carrigan

Certified Hearings Examiner

______

DISD v. Stephen Bossart – Recommendation of Certified Hearing Examiner, 08/24/2009 – page - 1

[1] Local.

[2] Local.

[3] DF-Local#1

[4] DF-Local #2

[5] DF-Local #3a.

[6] DF-Local #12.

[7] DF-Local #24.

[8] DF-Local #25.

[9] DF-Local #33.

[10] See transcript page 168.

[11] See transcript page 173

[12] See transcript page 175.

[13] See transcript page 176.

[14] Respondent’s exhibit # 5.

[15] See transcript page 440.