[*A portion of this video is without audio* ] [Hearings on November 20, 2025.] [00:00:15] >> PRIOR TO THE MEETING TIME FOR CURRENT PROTOCOL. VERBAL AND OTHER DISRUPTIONS BY PERSONS DURING SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THEY INHIBIT THE BOARD'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS AND THE PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO OBSERVE THOSE PROCESSES. PERSONS WHO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH BEHAVIOR WILL BE GIVEN ONE WARNING AND IF THE BEHAVIOR IS REPEATED, THEY WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE MEETING. WE HAVE 15 REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES EACH PER BOARD POLICY. WE ASK THAT YOU STAY ON TOPIC AND REFRAIN FROM NAMING INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY STUDENTS AS THEIR IDENTITY IS PROTECTED UNDER THE LAW, BUT YOU MAY NAME YOUR OWN CHILD. ASK THAT YOU PLEASE RESPECT OUR PROCEDURES AND THE OTHER SPEAKERS AND YOUR COMMENTS PROMPTLY WHEN YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED, AND THE TIME RINGS. SPEAKERS, PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE IN YOUR NUMBER TO ORDER AND SAY YOUR NAME. EMILY SMITH, WILL CALL THE SPEAKERS UP, BUT I THINK WE HAVE STUDENTS TODAY, SO THEY WILL START FIRST. MISS SMITH? >> YES. WE'RE GOING TO ASK STUDENTS TO COME TO THE FRONT ROW. ALL STUDENTS AVAILABLE. LET'S START WITH ISABEL BIGELOW? YES. YOU'VE GOT 2 MINUTES TO SPEAK. > HELLO. MY NAME IS ISABEL BIGELOW. I AM IN SECOND GRADE. I HAD MISS RUSSO LAST YEAR. SHE HAD A BIG LIBRARY, WHICH I THINK WAS REALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE IT DIDN'T JUST HAD PICTURE BOOK, IT HAD CHAPTER BOOKS THAT OTHER READERS THAT BETTER READERS COULD USE. SHE TAUGHT ME HOW TO READ, WHICH I THINK I CAME IN NOT KNOWING HOW TO READ, AND SHE TAUGHT ME HOW TO READ AND SHE SENT ME A NOTE THAT A THANK YOU NOTE AND AND INSIDE IT WAS LEARNING GAMES AND LOVE HEARTS, AND I MISS HER. >> THANK YOU. GOOD JOB. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS AKOMA. I'M A SECOND GRADER AT [INAUDIBLE], AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT MY FIRST GRADE TEACHERS. MISS RUSSO. MISS RUSSO IS A VERY SPECIAL TEACHER TO. ONE OF MY FAVORITES. WELL CLASS MADE ME SO HAPPY. SHE LOVED US SO MUCH AND TOLD US EVERY DAY. I STILL LOVE HER VERY MUCH, TOO. MISS RUSSO ALWAYS HELPED ME. I WILL A HEARING AID, AND SOMETIMES IT'S TOLD FOR ME TO HEAR IN CLASS. SHE MADE SURE I NEVER FELT EMBARRASSED AND ALWAYS CHECKED ON ME TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD. SHE HELPED ME LEARN A LOT OF STUFF LIKE READING, WRITING, AND ABOUT THE WORD. AT THE START OF HER CLASS, I COULD ONLY READ BABY BOOKS. SHE TAUGHT ME HOW TO WRITE MY FIRST SENTENCE EVER. SHE SHOWED ME HOW TO APPLY WORDS TOGETHER THE RIGHT WAY. I FELT PROUD THAT I COULD MAKE GOOD SENTENCES ON MY OWN. MISS RUSSO HELPED ME SO I COULD RE CHAPTER BOOKS NOW. I ALWAYS READ CHAPTER BOOKS. I FEEL LIKE I IMPROVED SO BECAUSE OF HER TEACHING ME NEW WORDS EVERY DAY AND ALWAYS SOUNDING WORDS OUT FOR ME. A LOT OF MY FRIENDS FROM CLASS LAST YEAR, ALL READ CHAPTER BOOK 2. WE LOVE TO LEARN IN MISS RUSSO'S CLASS. I LOVED WHEN WE LEARNED ABOUT POETRY. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT POETRY BEFORE, BUT IT WAS SO MUCH FED TO LEARN. [00:05:02] POETRY IS ONE OF MY FAVORITE THINGS IN THE WORLD. I MISS SEEING MISS RUSSO EVERY DAY, AND I HOPE SHE CAN BE MY TEACHER AGAIN ONE DAY. >> THANK YOU. >> VALENTINA CARROGA. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS VALENTINA CARROGA AND I'M A SEVENTH GRADER AT MANDARIN [INAUDIBLE] SCHOOL. MY LITTLE SISTER, OLIVIA AND ME BOTH HAD MISS RUSSO FOR FIRST GRADE. I STILL REMEMBER MEETING MISS RUSSO DURING MY BIG JUMP INTO FIRST GRADE. FOR YEARS, I'VE WATCHED MISS RUSSO DO THE SMALL THINGS, THE QUIET THINGS THAT MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE. SHE COMFORTS STUDENTS WHO. SHE SUPPORTS NEW TEACHERS, AND SHE TEACHES KIDS HOW TO READ AND WRITE. SHE VOLUNTEERS HER OWN TIME TO HELP OTHER PEERS. SHE NEVER ASKED FOR PRAISE. SHE JUST CARES AND IT'S IN HER NATURE. ON MY FIRST DAY OF FIRST GRADE, I WAS TERRIFIED AND COMPLETELY ALONE. I HAD JUST MOVED HERE FROM NEW YORK. I DIDN'T SPEAK THAT MUCH MANDARIN AND I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE I BELONGED ANYWHERE. I WASN'T VERY TALKATIVE. MISS RUSSO WAS THE ONE WHO BROUGHT ME OUT OF MY SHOW. SHE TOLD ME SOMETHING WE HAD IN COMMON, AND SHE BROUGHT THAT OUT AND MADE IT SOMETHING THAT WOULD SUPPORT ME THROUGHOUT MY YEAR. I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED HOW SHE KNEW. YEARS LATER, I FOUND OUT THAT IT WAS BECAUSE SHE TAKES HER TIME TO FIND OUT THE DIFFERENCES, AND OF COURSE, THE THINGS THAT MAKE EVERYBODY HELPFUL AND SUPPORT EVERYONE. SHE MADE ME FEEL SEEN. SHE MADE ME FEEL SAFE, AND SHE MADE ME BELIEVE I BELONGED AT MY SCHOOL. IT HURT KNOWING SHE MIGHT NOT BE WITH US ANYMORE. OUR SCHOOL FEELS DIFFERENT WITHOUT HER, LIKE A LIGHT HAS GONE OUT. STUDENTS LIKE ME STILL NEED SOMEONE LIKE HER. I AM ASKING HIT LEADERS TO PLEASE BRING BACK MISS RUSSO TO OUR SCHOOL. SHE CHANGED LIVES, AND SHE CHANGED MINE. AS ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTED BOLIVIAN TEACHERS IN AMERICA, JAMIE ALLONS ONCE SAID, TEACHING IS TOUCHING LIFE. MISS RUSSO TOUCHED MY LIFE, AND I'LL NEVER FORGET HER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. >> RENEE SMITH, FOLLOWED BY SOPHIE SMITH. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS RENEE SMITH, AND MISS RUSSO WAS MY FIRST GRADE TEACHER IN 2021. WHEN I THINK ABOUT HER, I DON'T JUST REMEMBER A TEACHER. I REMEMBER SOMEONE WHO TRULY LOVED US. THAT YEAR, THE ELEMENTARY GRADES DIDN'T HAVE AN ART TEACHER BECAUSE THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH TEACHERS. BUT MISS RUSSO KNEW HOW MUCH LITTLE KIDS LOVED TO DRAW. SHE BROUGHT ART INTO OUR CLASSROOM IN HER OWN WAYS. SHE LET US DRAW WHILE WE WROTE SENTENCES, AND SHE ALWAYS FOUND CREATIVE WAYS TO MAKE LEARNING FUN. SHE MADE OUR CLASSROOM FEEL WARM, SAFE, AND FULL OF JOY. ONE OF THE MEMORIES THAT TOUCHED ME THE MOST WAS WHEN SHE HELPED OUR CLASS MAKE A TIME CAPSULE. EACH OF US WROTE OUR WISHES OR SECRET ON A PIECE OF PAPER AND PUT IT INTO A BOX SHE PREPARED. SHE TOLD US THAT WE WILL OPEN IT AGAIN WHEN WE GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL. AT THAT TIME, I DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THIS ACTIVITY. BUT NOW I DO. SHE WANTED US TO REMEMBER WHO WE WERE AS CHILDREN. SHE WANTED US TO LOOK BACK ONE DAY AND SEE HOW FAR WE HAD GROWN. ONLY A TEACHER WHO TRULY CARES ABOUT HER STUDENTS WOULD THINK ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WHEN I LOOK BACK NOW, I REALIZED HOW MUCH LOVE SHE PUT INTO EVERYTHING SHE DID. SHE DIDN'T JUST TEACH US READING AND WRITING. SHE GAVE US MEMORIES THAT WILL STAY IN OUR HEARTS FOREVER. MISS RUSSO IS THE TEACHER WHO CHANGED KIDS' LIFE, AND I WAS LUCKY TO BE ONE OF THEM. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. >> THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS SOPHIE SMITH, AND MISS RUSSO WAS MY FIRST GRADE TEACHER FOUR YEARS AGO. IT WAS THE FIRST YEAR WE CAME BACK TO IN PERSON CLASS AFTER COVID, AND I WAS AN ESL STUDENT. ENGLISH WASN'T MY FIRST LANGUAGE, BUT IN JUST ONE YEAR WITH MISS RUSSO, MY ENGLISH IMPROVED A LOT. SHE ALWAYS ENCOURAGED ME AND MADE ME FEEL CONFIDENT. ONE OF THE MOST SPECIAL MEMORIES OF MY LIFE HAPPENED IN HER CLASS. WE WERE LEARNING ABOUT THE BUTTERFLY LIFE CYCLE. MISS RUSSO AND MISS LOU RAISED MONARCAPLLARS IN OUR CLASSROOM. EVERY MORNING, WE WERE SO EXCITED TO COME TO SCHOOL AND CHECK ON THEM. WE WATCHED THEM EAT, GROW, TURN INTO A COCOON, AND FINALLY BECOME BUTTERFLIES. I STILL REMEMBER THE DAY WE RELEASED THE BUTTERFLIES. I FELT SOMETHING WARM IN MY HEART [00:10:01] BECAUSE I FELT LIKE WE DID SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE WORLD. I LOVED IT SO MUCH THAT I STARTED RAISING MONA CATERPILLARS AT HOME. I EVEN MADE A GT PROJECT ABOUT IT. I WORKED REALLY HARD AND I WAS PROUD OF IT. PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT IT. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THESE MEMORIES ARE A PART OF WHO I AM NOW. THEY WILL STAY WITH ME FOREVER. THANK YOU, MISS RUSSO FOR BEING A TEACHER WHO TRULY CHANGES LIVES. THANK YOU. >> VERY NICE. THANK YOU. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER STUDENTS WHO REGISTERED TO SPEAK, MAKING SURE WE HAVE ALL STUDENTS WHO REGISTERED TO SPEAK. THIS CONCLUDES MY LIST. I'M JUST MAKING SURE. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO PARENTS. KELSEY BIGELOW, FOLLOWED BY ELAINE SHACK. >> MY NAME IS KELSEY BIGELOW. YOU JUST HEARD FROM IZZY, MY SECOND GRADER, WHO HAD MISS RUSSO. I'VE ALSO HAD A FOURTH GRADER WHO DID NOT HAVE HER. WE HAD ANOTHER TEACHER AT MMS, BUT WE'VE BEEN AT MIM SINCE KINDERGARTEN, I GUESS FOUR OR FIVE YEARS NOW. BUT WE REALLY ENJOYED HAVING MISS RUSSO FOR FIRST GRADE LAST YEAR. MY PERSPECTIVE AND PERCEPTION OF HER BOTH BEFORE SHE WAS MY DAUGHTER'S TEACHER AND D AND AFTER WAS THAT SHE WAS HONEST STRAIGHTFORWARD, AN EXCELLENT COMMUNICATOR, AND A REAL LEADER IN HER DEPARTMENT. ACADEMICALLY, I SAW MARKED PROGRESS IN MY DAUGHTER'S READING CAPABILITY, AND SHE TAUGHT HER TO READ AND THRIVE AND TO REALLY LOVE SCHOOL. OVERWHELMINGLY, THOUGH, SHE ALWAYS PUT THE NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN FIRST. SHE'S KIND CREATIVE AND CONSIDERATE. EVEN WHEN THINGS WERE HARD, SHE PUT THEM FIRST, AND OUR EXPERIENCE WAS WITH HER THAT SHE WAS JUST AN EXCELLENT TEACHER AND BELOVED BY HER STUDENTS. >> THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ELAINE JACK, AND I'M HERE TODAY AS A PARENT WHO HAS SEEN FIRSTHAND THE TEACHER MISS JANIE RUSSO IS. SHE TAUGHT BOTH OF MY DAUGHTERS IN FIRST GRADE WHO ARE NOW 12 AND 10, AND EVEN NOW YEARS LATER, I CAN SEE THE LASTING IMPACT SHE HAS HAD ON WHO THEY ARE AS LEARNERS AND PEOPLE. WHAT STANDS OUT MOST ABOUT MISS RUSSO IS THE WAY SHE MAKES CHILDREN FEEL SEEN. IN HER CLASSROOM, EVERY CHILD, WHETHER SHY, ENERGETIC, STRUGGLING OR SOARING, FELT UNDERSTOOD, VALUED, AND CAPABLE. MY GIRLS WALKED INTO HER CLASSROOM AT AGES WHEN CONFIDENCE IS FRAGILE, AND THEY WALKED OUT BELIEVING THEY WERE SMART, CREATIVE, AND READY FOR THE WORLD. THAT FOUNDATION STAYS WITH THE CHILD AND IT STAYS WITH THE FAMILY. BEYOND HER WARMTH AND KINDNESS, MISS RUSSO IS A DEEPLY SKILLED EDUCATOR. MY CHILDREN LEARN TO READ WITH JOY. THEY DEVELOP CURIOSITY, INDEPENDENCE, AND A LEVEL OF SCHOOL THAT HAS CARRIED THEM THROUGH THE YEARS. SHE DIDN'T JUST TEACH THEM ACADEMICS. SHE TAUGHT THEM HOW TO THINK, HOW TO TRY, HOW TO CARE ABOUT THEIR WORK. THAT IS THE MARK OF AN EXTRAORDINARY TEACHER. IT'S NOT JUST MY FAMILY. PARENTS TALK, WE SHARE STORIES, WE NOTICE. AGAIN AND AGAIN, WE'VE SEEN MISS RUSSO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND, ADVOCATING FOR STUDENTS, ADAPTING TO THEIR NEEDS AND PUTTING KIDS FIRST ALWAYS. THE DOCUMENT BEFORE YOU SHOWS THE SAME TRUTH THAT WE AS PARENTS HAVE KNOWN FOR YEARS. MISS RUSSO IS A DEDICATED, EFFECTIVE, COMPASSIONATE, AND UNWAVERINGLY COMMITTED TO HER STUDENTS. WE TRUST HER, OUR CHILDREN THRIVE WITH HER, AND OUR SCHOOL COMMUNITY IS STRONGER BECAUSE OF HER. I URGE YOU TO SEE MISS RUSSO THE WAY SO MANY FAMILIES DO, NOT ONLY AS A TEACHER, BUT AS A CORNERSTONE OF WHAT WE HOPE OUR SCHOOLS CAN BE, A PLACE WHERE STUDENTS GROW, FEEL SAFE, AND FEEL INSPIRED. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> CLARISSA CHEN, FOLLOWED BY TING HONG, FOLLOWED BY LATHAN NEWEN. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS CLARISSA AND MY TWIN SPAN RENEE HAVE BEEN AT MINGS FOR SEVEN YEARS. OUT OF ALL THOSE YEARS, MISS RUSSO IS TRULY THE BEST TEACHER WE HAVE EVER HAD. SHE WAS MY DAUGHTER'S FIRST GRADE TEACHER. BOTH OF MY GIRLS WERE ESL STUDENTS, AND AT HOME, WE DON'T SPEAK MUCH ENGLISH. I WAS VERY WORRIED ABOUT THE ENGLISH LEVEL BACK THEN. BUT WITH MISS RUSSO, THEY FEEL SAFE, SUPPORT AND EXCITING TO LEARN. THEY LOVE GOING TO SCHOOL EVERY SINGLE DAY AND THEIR ENGLISH IMPROVES SO QUICKLY. SHE REALLY HELPED THEM GROW. ON JUNE 4, THE LAST DAY OF SCHOOL, MISS RUSSO HANDED ME THIS BOX. SHE TOLD ME IT WAS THE TIME CAPSULE, THE CLASSMATE IN FIRST GRADE. INSIDE ARE THEIR WISHES AND THE MEMORIES FOUND YEAR. [00:15:05] SHE ASKED ME TO KEEP IT SAFE AND NOT OPEN UNTIL THEY GRADUATE. THIS WAS DURING A VERY STRESSFUL TIME FOR HER WHEN SHE WAS PREPARING TO LEAVE THE SCHOOL. BUT EVEN THEN, SHE WAS THINKING ABOUT THE KIDS IN THE NEAR FUTURE. ON THE BOX ON THE BACK OF THE BOX, AND YOU CAN SEE SHE WRITE ON THIS MAD 8222, 22, AND THE OPEN DAY IS, THREE, AND 33. SMALL DETAIL LIKE THIS SHOW HOW [INAUDIBLE] SHE IS. TEACHER LIKE MISS RUSSO ARE REAL. SHE TEACH WITH HER HEART AND SHE LEAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON CHILDREN. MY FAMILY IS VERY GRATEFUL FOR HER. TODAY, ANOTHER PARENTS TAKES ME BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T COME HERE THIS MEETING. HER DAUGHTER SLATE SAY SHE REALLY LIKED MISS RUSSO. SHE REMEMBER THAT MISS RUSSO WAS GIVING EVERY CHILD A SMALL JOB IN THE CLASSROOM. HER JOB WAS WATERING THE PLANS AND SHE SAY IT MAKES HER FEEL TRUST AND IMPORTANT. >> THAT'S YOUR TIME. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. I'M JASPER YAN'S MOTHER. MY NAME IS TRINA HANG. BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF MY WORK, I'M NOT ALWAYS BE ABLE TO FOLLOW EVERY DETAIL OF MY CHILD'S SCHOOL LIFE AS CLOSE AS I CAN. ANYONE WHO KNOWS JASPER WOULD DESCRIBE HIM AS LIVELY, CURIOUS AND FULL OF HIS OWN IDEAS. BEFORE FIRST GRADE, JASPER OFTEN FAILED MISUNDERSTOOD AND HE CARRIED A SENSE OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT HIMSELF. BUT EVERYTHING CHANGED AFTER HE ENTERED MISS RUSSO CLASS. JASPER BEGAN TO LOOK FORWARD TO GOING TO SCHOOL EVERY DAY. WE ARE DEEPLY THANKFUL TO MISS RUSSO. SHE IS A TEACHER WHO TRULY SEES EACH CHILD AND TEACHES ACCORDING TO THEIR INDIVIDUALITY. IF TEACHING WERE JUST A JOB TO HER, SHE WOULD NOT HAVE INVESTED SO MUCH TIME, PATIENCE AND CARE INTO UNDERSTANDING EACH STUDENT'S UNIQUENESS. THROUGH MISS RUSSO, I HAVE COME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT TRULY MEANS TO BE AN EXCEPTIONAL TEACHER. THANK YOU, EVERYONE, FOR GIVING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEECH, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HELLO, MY NAME IS LATHAN NEIN, AND MY DAUGHTER IS AKOMA. SHE WAS A STUDENT LAST YEAR IN FIRST GRADE WITH MISS RUSSO. WHEN AKOMA FIRST ENTERED FIRST GRADE, SHE WAS STILL DEVELOPING HER READING FLUENT-S AND WASN'T YET MAKING HER SENTENCES ON HER OWN. OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR, SHE TRANSFORMED. SHE BECAME CONFIDENT AND A FLUENT READER. IN FACT, SHE TESTED AT A THIRD GRADE LEVEL BY THE END OF THE YEAR WITH MISS RUSSO. SHE ALSO BEGAN TO ASK THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS ABOUT TEXTS AND READING, AND SHE BECAME A STRONGER WRITER THAN I EVER IMAGINED FOR HER AGE. THAT GROWTH WASN'T ACCIDENTAL, IT WAS A DIRECT RESULT OF MISS RUSSO'S TEACHING. MISS RUSSO TEACHES WITH CLARITY AND ATTENTION IN A WAY THAT MADE SENSE TO MY YOUNG LEARNER. MY DAUGHTER BECAME SO ENGAGED THAT EVERY DAY SHE WOULD COME HOME TALKING ABOUT POETRY AND WORLD EVENTS, ASKING TO WATCH THE NEWS AND WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS AND THAT. THINGS THAT I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT AT HOME. SHE WAS CLEARLY LEARNING THIS AT SCHOOL MISS RUSSO. THAT ONLY JUST HAPPENS WITH A TEACHER WHO IS NOT JUST FOLLOWING THE PLAN, BUT SHE'S BRINGING THE PLAN TO LIFE. I ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT HOW THOUGHTFUL MISS RUSSO WAS IN THE WAY THAT SHE SUPPORTED MY DAUGHTER'S HEARING NEEDS. IT'S BEEN A LONG JOURNEY AS FAR AS HER HEARING DISABILITY, AND I NEVER HAD TO ASK MISS RUSSO FOR ANY ACCOMMODATIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WE DON'T HAVE A FORMAL PLAN IN PLACE. SHE TOOK IT UPON HERSELF TO MAKE THOSE ACCOMMODATIONS. SHE SET MY DAUGHTER CLOSER, SHE REPEATED INSTRUCTIONS. I ASKED MY DAUGHTER, ARE YOU SURE YOU HEARD EVERYTHING ON THE SPELLING TEST. SHE WAS YES, MISS RUSSO STOOD RIGHT NEXT TO ME. SHE MOUTHED FOR HER, SHE GAVE HER CUES AND THINGS THAT I HADN'T EVEN BEGAN TO PRACTICE AT HOME. SHE ENSURED THAT MY DAUGHTER COULD FULLY PARTICIPATE EVEN ON DAYS WHERE SHE FORGOT HER HEARING AID OR THE BATTERY DIED. [00:20:01] BEYOND EPIDEMICS, MISS RUSSO CONSTANTLY COMMUNICATED. SHE WAS HEARING, SHE GREETED OUR FAMILY AT DISMISSAL. THANK YOU, THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JAMES KROGER FOLLOWED BY GWEN VORA AND CHINA ZU. GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS JAMES KROGER, I AM FATHER OF A FIFTH GRADER AND A SEVENTH GRADER SPOKE TODAY. WHAT DEFINES A GRADE EDUCATOR? WELL, IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS OF THE TERM THAT DEFINES EDUCATOR. IT'S SOMEONE THAT REPRESENTS EVERY ETHINICAL GIFT INSIDE THE VALUES OF HISD ESTATE. THE VALUES OF HISD IS TO REPRESENT WHETHER YOU'RE POOR, WHETHER YOU'RE RICH, WHETHER YOU'RE NOT GREAT ACADEMICALLY, WHETHER YOU ARE GREAT ACADEMICALLY. IN THAT TEACHER, IT'S OBVIOUS HERE, BUT THE LINE THAT WE HAVE THAT REPRESENTS THOSE VALUES. THESE LITTLE KIDS THAT TOUCHED MY HEART, THAT SHE HAS TOUCHED THE HEART, MANY, MANY MORE PEOPLE THAT CAN BE HERE. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU SOMETHING RIGHT NOW. TEACHERS GAVE NOTES TODAY SAY GOOD LUCK TO MISS RUSSO, GIVE IT TO THE KIDS THAT WERE COMING HERE. THAT'S WHO SHE IS, SHE'S A LEADER. IN HER ABSENCE THIS YEAR, OUR SCHOOL HAS A LOT OF ISSUES. SAFETY, BULLYING, ANSWERS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN WRITTEN BACK TO PARENTS, BUT WE HAVE AN ADVOCATE OF MISS RUSSO, A LEADER OF HISD. THAT WOULD NOT HAPPEN, NOT ALL THESE PROBLEMS. THE SCHOOL IS NOT PERFECT, I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE REALLY HARD POSITIONS. I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT YOU KNOW THAT ALL THESE ISSUES WOULDN'T AMOUNT TO HALF OF THEM IF WE HAVE A SENIOR TEACHER, LIKE MISSES RUSSO IN OUR SCHOOL. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY. SHE'S HERE, AND NOBODY ELSE IN THERE THAT'S NOT DOING THE RIGHT THING IS IN THERE. YOU HAVE TO ANSWER TO THESE KIDS RIGHT HERE, AND I HOPE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT DECISION AFTER THIS MEETING. BECAUSE IT IS OBVIOUS HERE THAT SHE REPRESENTS EVERYBODY IN THE SCHOOL. THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS QUINN. I AM A PARENT AT THE MANDARIN IMMERSION MAGNET SCHOOL, AND AT MIMS, WE ARE A VERY CLOSE KNIT COMMUNITY. WE LOVE OUR COMMUNITY, WE LOVE OUR TEACHERS. WE LOVE OUR PRINCIPAL, WE LOVE OUR CUSTODIANS. WE ARE JUST SO CLOSE, WHENEVER WE SEE SOMEBODY THAT NEEDS OUR SUPPORT LIKE MISS RUSSO. WE TRY TO SHOW UP AND SPEAK THE TRUTH ABOUT HER. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE A LOT OF US HERE TODAY TO TO SUPPORT MISS RUSSO, NOT BECAUSE WE WANT TO GET OUR SCHOOL IN TROUBLE OR WE WANT TO GET ANYONE IN TROUBLE. BUT REALLY WE DO MISS MISS RUSSO, I HAVE BEEN A PARENT AT MIMS SINCE MY OLDEST CHILD STARTED IN KINDERGARTEN IN 2016. THAT IS ALMOST TEN YEARS AND AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN THERE, MISS RUSSO HAS BEEN THERE. SHE HAS BEEN A TEACHER AT MIMS SINCE 2015, I BELIEVE. ANYHOW, WE'VE BOTH SEEN TEACHERS LEAVE. WE'VE SEEN PRINCIPALS LEAVE, WE'VE SEEN FAMILIES LEAVE. BUT THE FACT THAT MISS RUSSO HAS REMAINED AT MIMS SPEAKS TO HER DEVOTION TO OUR KIDS AT THE SCHOOL. MY YOUNGEST ONE, WHO IS NOW IN THIRD GRADE. HAD MISS RUSSO TWO YEARS AGO WHEN HE WAS IN FIRST GRADE. THE OTHER DAY I ASKED HIM, DO YOU REMEMBER MISS RUSSO. WHAT WAS SHE LIKE, HE TOLD ME, WELL, MISS RUSSO WAS VERY STRICT. SHE NEVER SMILES, BUT SHE LOVES US. SHE ALWAYS TELLS US IN CLASS, YOU GUYS BETTER WORK ON YOUR HANDWRITING SKILLS OR IN SECOND GRADE. THE SECOND GRADE TEACHERS ARE EVEN STRICTER, AND THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE POINTS OFF IF YOU HAVE BAD HANDWRITING. AS PARENTS, WE REALLY LOVE THAT. BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE TODAY, SCHOOL SO FOCUSED ON TECHNOLOGY AND HAVING A SENIOR TEACHER LIKE MISS RUSSO BRING THOSE TRADITIONAL STYLES OF LEARNING. IT'S REALLY GOOD FOR OUR KIDS. PLEASE RECONSIDER, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE HAVE TWO MORE PARENTS ON ZOOM. MISS MCGEE, PLEASE TURN YOUR CAMERA ON. ABRIA MCGEE. WE'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT PARENT. TINA HI. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. PLEASE GO AHEAD, YOU HAVE 2 MINUTES. THANK YOU. YES, I CAN HEAR YOU. PERFECT, SO GOOD EVENING BOARD MEMBERS. [00:25:04] THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TODAY AS A PARENT OF A STUDENT WHO WAS IN MISS RUSSO FIRST GRADE ENGLISH AND LANGUAGE ARTS CLASS IN THE 2020 TO 2025 ACADEMIC YEAR. MY DAUGHTER, SHE BEGAN FIRST GRADE WITH A LEXILE READING LEVEL OF BR350, WHICH IS 350 POINTS BELOW THE STARTING LEVEL. AT OUR PARENT TEACHER CONFERENCE, MISS RUSSO REASSURED ME THAT MY DAUGHTER WAS WORKING VERY HARD IN THE CLASS AND ENCOURAGED US TO READ MORE WITH HER AT HOME BECAUSE SHE WAS A GOOD READER. SHE JUST NEEDED MORE PRACTICE AND CONSISTENCY LIKE MOST KIDS. SHE WAS VERY ENCOURAGING, VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND PROFESSIONAL DURING OUR ENTIRE MEETING, NEVER ONCE SPEAKING ABOUT TOPICS IRRELEVANT TO MY DAUGHTER'S EDUCATION. I WENT INTO THE MEETING, VERY PANICKED AND LEFT FEELING VERY CONFIDENT THAT MY DAUGHTER WAS GOING TO BE IN GOOD HANDS FOR THE YEAR. BY APRIL, HER LEXILE READING LEVEL IMPROVED TO 515 L, WHICH IS AT A SECOND GRADE LEVEL. ACCORDING TO CHAT GPT IS ROUGHLY FOUR YEARS OF LEXILE GROWTH, WHICH IS REALLY REMARKABLE. WITH REGARDS TO HER DIBBLES TESTING, SHE MET THE GOAL AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR BUT WAS EITHER BELOW OR AT BENCHMARK AT THAT TIME. BY THE END OF THE YEAR, SHE HAD SURPASSED THE GOAL AND WAS ACTUALLY ABOVE THE BENCHMARK ON ALL OF THE METRICS THAT WERE MEASURED. THEN AT THE BEGINNING OF SECOND GRADE, SHE HAD A MAP READING SCORE THAT PUT HER AT THE 90TH PERCENTILE. WHICH DEMONSTRATED THAT SHE REALLY TRULY LEARNED HOW TO READ FOR MISS RUSSO'S FIRST GRADE ENGLISH CLASS. THIS PROVIDES INDISPUTABLE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE THAT MISS RUSSO IN HER FINAL YEAR AT MIMS WAS AN EFFECTIVE AND INSPIRATIONAL TEACHER WHO NOT ONLY HELPED MY DAUGHTER LEARN TO READ. BUT ALSO INSTILLED WITHIN HER A CONFIDENCE AND LOVE OF READING. HISD SHOULD DO EVERYTHING IN ITS POWER TO RETAIN TEACHERS LIKE MISS RUSSO. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. MISS MINDY, YOU HAVE 2 MINUTES. HI, CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU, GO AHEAD. HI, YES SO MY SON IS A STUDENT AT THE MANDARIN IMMERSION SCHOOL. HE IS ENERGETIC AND HE IS FULL OF LIFE. WHEN HE JOINED MISS RUSSO'S CLASS, HE FINALLY FELT HE HAD A TEACHER WHO UNDERSTOOD HIM AND EMBRACED HIS PERSONALITY RATHER THAN REPRIMANDING HIM FOR IT. AT THE START OF THE YEAR, HE WASN'T A STRONG READER COMING OUT OF KINDERGARTEN. BY THE END OF THE YEAR, HIS READING SCORES HAD IMPROVED DRAMATICALLY. HE WAS THRILLED TO HAVE FINISHED CHARLOTTE WEBB, HIS FIRST CHAPTER BOOK, BY THE END OF THE YEAR. UNTIL THIS DAY, HE STILL TALKS ABOUT THE CHARACTERS FROM THAT STORY. THIS EXPERIENCE SPARKED A LOVE FOR READING THAT CONTINUES TO GROW WITHIN MY SON. WHEN MY SON RETURNED THIS YEAR FOR THIRD GRADE AND REALIZED MISS RUSSO WASN'T IN THE HALLWAYS TO GREET HIM. OR THAT SHE WOULDN'T BE HIS YOUNGER BROTHER'S TEACHER FOR FIRST GRADE, HE CRIED IMMEDIATELY. HE ASKED ME WHAT HAPPENED, AND I THINK THAT THIS REACTION SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT THE KIND OF TEACHER MISS RUSSO IS. SHE WAS CARING, SHE WAS UNDERSTANDING, AND SHE WAS VERY PATIENT WITH A YOUNG AFRICAN AMERICAN BOY WHO'S TYPICALLY LOOKED AT AS A PROBLEM IN A CLASSROOM. SHE WAS REALLY COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT MY SON WASN'T LEFT BEHIND AND SHE WAS VERY SUPPORTIVE. WITH THAT SAID, I REALLY HOPE THAT SHE IS REINSTATED AS A TEACHER INTO THE DISTRICT. THANK YOU, JAMIE RUSSO. I'M HERE AS A 38 YEAR VETERAN TEACHER WHO CHOSE TO REMAIN IN THE CLASSROOM AND SPEAK ON MY BEHALF. I HAVE A MASTER'S DEGREE IN MULTI-CULTURE EDUCATION, JEN ED AND SPED ED. I WENT ON ALL SIX ACCOUNTS ON MY CASE AGAINST HISD, AND HOPING I CAN RETURN BACK TO THE CLASSROOM. I HOPE YOU ALL HAVE READ THE SUMMATION AS IT IS PUBLIC RECORD. MY WONDERFUL, AMAZING CLASS OF 44 FIRST GRADERS LAST YEAR GREW 100% IN READING. YET I'M BEING ACCUSED OF BEING INCOMPETENT. TWO WEEKS AGO, I WAS SENT AN E MAIL THAT THERE WAS AN OVERSIGHT THAT I DIDN'T RECEIVE MY INCENTIVE PAY. THEN IT WOULD BE ON MY PAYCHECK, NOVEMBER 5. YET I'M STANDING HERE BECAUSE I WAS ACCUSED OF LOW SPOT SCORES AND THREATENED WITH A NON RENEWAL. NOW I'M BEING REWARDED. I HAD AN APPRAISER LAST YEAR WHO ONLY TAUGHT MATH FOR EIGHT YEARS IN FOURTH GRADE. SHE STATED AT MY HEARING THAT MRS STRATEGIES ARE BRAIN BREAKS. SHE ALSO TOLD ME WHEN I TRIED TO HELP A CHILD WHO WAS FROM CHINA, WAS A LAP STUDENT TO NOT HELP HIM BECAUSE HE SPOKE ENGLISH. YET I SPEND EVERY DAY WITH HIS CHILD AND SHE DOES NOT. I WAS ALSO TOLD WHEN A CHILD CAME BACK FROM SPECIAL ED SERVICES TO NOT STOP MY CLASS AND HELP HER AND KEEP MOVING ON. THESE CHILDREN ARE SIX AND SEVEN, [00:30:01] I TRIED TO DO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SPOT SCORES, BUT IT WAS NEVER GOOD ENOUGH. I KEPT GETTING TOLD TO DO MORE, I JUST PUSHED FORWARD. CONTINUED TO TEACH MY STUDENTS, I FOCUSED ON THIS AND DID THESE BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN AND DID MY JOB WITH INTEGRITY, DILIGENCE AND TRUTHFULNESS. THIS EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN TRAUMATIC. MY DIGNITY HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY. I'VE BEEN HUMILIATED AND MY CHARACTER HAS BEEN PUT TO QUESTION. HAVE ANY OF YOU EVER TAUGHT A CHILD TO READ? WHEN I AM DONE ON THIS EARTH, I WILL BE ABLE TO SAY THAT I TAUGHT CHILDREN AND I MADE THEIR LIVES BETTER. I'VE NEVER HEARD A CHILD, BUT ALL YOU WANT TO DO IS FIRE ME. WHAT TYPE OF CHILD, TEACHER, DO YOU WANT FOR YOUR CHILD? I TEACH WITH MY HEART AND SOUL, AND I TEACH CHILDREN TO BE LIFELONG LEARNERS. ONCE YOUR STUDENTS LOVE YOU, THEY WILL LEARN. YOU HAVE TO MAKE CONNECTIONS, AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE JOY IN YOUR CLASSROOM. AND MY NAME IS JAMIE RUSSO [APPLAUSE] THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES OUR SPEAKERS. WE WILL NOW CONDUCT THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THIS MEETING. PLEASE NOTE THAT WE WILL NOT BE CONDUCTING THE STUDENT EXPULSION APPEAL, NOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR SAMANTHA ODUM. AS APPEALS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN IN BOTH CASES. >> FIRST HEARING IS ON BEHALF OF MARIA ATINY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF MARIA, TEACHER GARDEN OAKES MONTEIT. HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION LESSON EMPLOYEE WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE HEARING, REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING. IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION DURING THE HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO A CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEYS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551071. IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. FOR THE RECORD. CHRISTOPHER TOO LAW, REPRESENTING MARIA FANTINE IS PRESENT. MARIA FANTINE IS ALSO PRESENT. MILES BRADSHAW OF BRADSHAW LAW, REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENT, ATASHA WOODS, HIC GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT. MR. TRITCO, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE OPEN OR CLOSED? >> OPEN. >> OPEN. THIS PAGE. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD OR WHETHER TO ADOPT, REJECT OR CHANGE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDING OF FACT CONCLUSION OF LAW AND PROPOSAL BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE RECORD. WE MAY REJECT OR CHANGE A FINDING OF FACT, IF AFTER REVIEWING THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER, WE FIND IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. WE MAY ADOPT, REJECT, OR CHANGE THE HEARING EXAMINER'S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND PROPOSAL FOR GRANTING RELIEF IF WE REJECT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OR MAKE ANY CHANGES WE MUST STATE THE REASON AND LEGAL BASIS IN WRITING. MR. BRADSHAW, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST. YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD FOLLOWED BY A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. TRICO. MR. BRADSHAW, MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR 10 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MR. TRICO. BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THE RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS, MR. BRADSHAW. HOW DO YOU WANT TO SPLIT YOUR TIME? YOU MAY BEGIN. >> THANK YOU, MR. BOARD PRESIDENT. BOARD MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE AND ALL THE HARD WORK. THIS SCHOOL YEAR, THE DISTRICT AND THE BOARD, YOU ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE FACT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF TEACHER NON RENEWALS, TEACHER TERMINATIONS THAT HAD TO DO WITH PERFORMANCE IN THE CLASSROOM, INSTRUCTIONAL PERFORMANCE. AND I'VE HAD A NUMBER OF THOSE CASES. IN EACH ONE OF THEM, THE CRITICAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT WAS USED BY THE DISTRICT WERE THESE SPOT OBSERVATIONS AND THE GENERAL EVALUATION PROCESS THAT HIST HAS USED, THE T TEST PROCESS. THAT'S WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT AS WELL. AND IT SEEMS FAIRLY PREVALENT, AT LEAST IN THE SENSE THAT ALL THE CASES THAT YOU SEE, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S SEVERAL THOUSAND TEACHERS IN THE DISTRICT. [00:35:02] BUT WITHIN THE CASES THAT YOU SEE, IT'S FAIRLY COMMON THAT SOME OF THESE HEARING OFFICERS AREN'T REALLY UNDERSTANDING STANDARDS THAT THIS DISTRICT AND THIS BOARD AND THIS SUPERINTENDENT HAVE SET FOR THE FOR CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION. THAT STANDARD IS, OF COURSE, JUDGED BY THE SPOT OBSERVATIONS AND THE EVALUATION MATERIALS THAT YOUR ADMINISTRATORS HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO LEARN, THEY'VE BEEN TRAINED ON IT. THEY HAD THEIR OWN APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE, THEY HAD THEIR OWN SEPARATE APPRAISAL CERTIFICATIONS. THIS CASE IS VERY SIMPLE IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S ALL ABOUT INSTRUCTION, AND IT'S ALL ABOUT THE FACT THAT EVERY TEACHER IN THIS DISTRICT HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO BE PROFICIENT IN THE CLASSROOM. PERIOD. UNDER THE SPOT OBSERVATION SYSTEM, TO BE PROFICIENT ON ANY GIVEN SPOT OBSERVATION, A TEACHER MUST SCORE A NINE OR HIGHER, I BELIEVE UP TO 15. IN THIS CASE, THE EVIDENCE, SUPPORTS THAT THIS TEACHER WAS NOT PROFICIENT IN THE CLASSROOM. IN FACT, HISD EXHIBIT 5, IS A GOOD SUMMARY OF ALL THE SPOT OBSERVATIONS THAT WERE PERFORMED THIS PAST SCHOOL YEAR. THIS IS JUST FOR YOUR BENEFIT. THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. IT HAS THEM ALL COMPILED ON A SINGLE CHART SO YOU CAN SEE UPS AND DOWNS THROUGHOUT THE SCHOOL YEAR, ON THESE SPOT OBSERVATIONS AND THE PERFORMANCE OF THE TEACHER. THAT DOTTED LINE, WHICH HAS NEVER REACHED FROM AUGUST THROUGH APRIL IS PROFICIENT. THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, MISS FANTINE STARTED OUT WITH FIVE ON THE FIRST THREE OBSERVATIONS. NOW, SHE DID HAVE AN EIGHT ON THE NEXT ONE, BUT THEN SHE WENT DOWN TO SIX, STAYED AT SIX FOR A WHILE. THEN SHE WENT UP TO SEVEN, WAS UP AT EIGHT BACK DOWN TO SIX, AND THEN FINISHED APRIL AT EIGHT. NOW, I APPRECIATE THE FACT AND THE HEARING OFFICER APPARENTLY HUNG HIS HAT ON IT THAT HER SCORES GOT BETTER, GENERALLY SPEAKING, BUT THEY'RE STILL BELOW PROFICIENT, AND THAT'S WHAT THE HEARING OFFICER DOESN'T GET AND DIDN'T GET IN THIS CASE. THE GOOD THING IS, FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE SUPERINTENDENT AND THE CHILDREN IN THE CLASSROOM OF MISS FANTINE IS THAT THE LAW SAYS THAT THIS BOARD RETAINS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE ULTIMATE DECISION OF WHETHER THE FACTS DEMONSTRATE THAT BOARD POLICY WAS VIOLATED, AND THOSE POLICIES INCLUDE THE REASONS FOR NON RENEWAL. HERE, ULTIMATELY, THE CONCLUSION OF LAW OF WHETHER THERE'S GOOD CAUSE OR WHETHER THERE'S INEFFICIENCY OR INCOMPETENCY BY THE TEACHER OR THAT THE TEACHER FAILED TO MEET HER RESPONSIBILITIES, OR THERE WERE DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT IN EVALUATIONS AND APPRAISALS, REPORTS, AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE. BECAUSE THOSE FOUR THINGS WERE THE SOME OF THE REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED NON RENEWAL. AND HERE, SHE WAS NEVER PROFICIENT IN THE CLASSROOM. THE HEARING OFFICER EVEN MADE THAT FINDING. HE MADE THE FINDING IN NUMBERS NINE THROUGH 13 THAT HIS APPRAISER CAME IN AND OBSERVED AND HE DETAILED THE SCORES. HE DETAILED THE FACT THAT OUT OF 24 SPOT OBSERVATIONS, 22 OF THEM WERE BELOW NINE. TWO OF THEM GOT TO NINE, AND THOSE WERE ACTUALLY RIGHT AT THE END OF THE SCHOOL YEAR, ONE OF THEM AFTER SHE'D ALREADY BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR A NON RENEWAL. WHAT YOU HAVE IS INCONSISTENCY IN THE CLASSROOM DURING THE ENTIRE SCHOOL YEAR. THE FINDING IS THERE TO SUPPORT THE STANDARD THAT THIS BOARD SHOULD UPHOLD FOR THE STUDENTS OF HISD. FOR THAT REASON, WE HAVE SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER. WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU CHANGE FINDING OF FACT NUMBER FIVE, EXCUSE ME, NUMBER NINE. BECAUSE NINE AND THIS WELL, I DON'T WANT TO TALK BADLY ABOUT THE HEARING OFFICER, BUT IT'S THERE. FINDING NUMBER NINE FIRST SAYS, FANTINE ASKED FOR COACHING AND NEVER RECEIVED ANY. THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY, SHE WAS GIVEN SOME COACHING. COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH ITS OWN FINDING. THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. THAT SHE NEVER RECEIVED ANY COACHING BY HIS OWN FINDING. [00:40:05] THAT NEEDS TO BE STRUCK AND CHANGED AS SHOWN. FINDING OF FACT, 14 IS SIMILAR. AT THE END OF IT, IT STATES. THE ADMINISTRATION NEVER RESPONDED, ASSISTED, OR OFFERED ANY TYPE OF FEEDBACK AGAIN. THE PREVIOUS FINDINGS BY THE SAME HEARING OFFICER TALK ABOUT ALL THE FEEDBACK, ALL THE COACHING, ALL THE MEMOS SHE RECEIVED, ALL THE OBSERVATIONS THAT WERE GIVEN. THOSE OBSERVATIONS WERE LED INTO THE RECORD. THEY STATED ALL THE FEEDBACK SHE WAS GIVEN IN EACH SPOT, THAT WAS IN THE RECORD AS AN EXHIBIT. AND SO THAT AGAIN, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT LAST SENTENCE IN FINDING OF FACT NUMBER, AND WE PROPOSE THAT IT BE CHANGED ACCORDINGLY. FINALLY, THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OF COURSE, ARE THE AREA IN THE DECISION THAT SAYS THERE EITHER IS GOOD CAUSE OR THERE ISN'T OR THIS NON RENEWAL REASON IS PROVEN OR IT'S NOT. THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT CASE OF DAVIS VERSUS MONTGOMERY ISD, THAT IT'S THIS BOARD THAT GETS TO DECIDE WHETHER ONE OF THE NON RENEWAL REASONS HAS BEEN MET, WHETHER THE EVIDENCE THAT IT CAN LEGITIMATELY AND REASONABLY USE TO SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION, WHICH HERE, AS I MENTIONED, YOU HAD FOUR FINDINGS THAT SPECIFICALLY SAY HER SPOTS WERE WAY BELOW AVERAGE OR EXCUSE ME, WAY BELOW PROFICIENT. THE LAW SAYS YOU GET TO MAKE THAT DECISION. TO DO OTHERWISE, TO NOT CHANGE THE FINDINGS WOULD GO AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT THIS DISTRICT, EVERYTHING THE SUPERINTENDENT HAS WORKED FOR SINCE THE TAKEOVER, AND IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY GUT THE SPOT OBSERVATION PROCESS, AND ALL THE TRAINING THAT THESE ADMINISTRATORS HAVE GONE THROUGH, AND IT WOULD JUST MAKE IT ALL FOR NAUGHT. THE HEARING OFFICER DIDN'T GET IT. I THINK THAT'S CLEAR. WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU CHANGE THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS SHOWN IN OUR PLEADING THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU AND THAT YOU NON RENEW MISS FANTINE'S CONTRACT. THANK YOU. >> MR. CHICO, YOU CAN MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD? OKAY. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR HEARING US TONIGHT. MARIA FANTINE WAS BORN IN ITALY, IMMIGRATED TO THE UNITED STATES IN 1979, DID NOT SPEAK A WORD OF ENGLISH, LEARNED TO SPEAK ENGLISH IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL IN NEW YORK. NOT UNLIKE ONE OF THESE YOUNG LADIES WHO JUST SPOKE HERE TONIGHT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT THE STRUGGLE OF LEARNING ENGLISH IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL. LEARNED ABOUT BULLYING IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE STRUGGLES THAT IT TAKES TO LEARN ENGLISH, BEING FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY. THAT STRUGGLE FORMED HER OPINIONS AND FRAMED HER DESIRE TO BECOME A TEACHER. HER FATHER MOVED HER HERE TO THE HOUSTON AREA WHEN HE WAS TRANSFERRED HERE, AND AFTER COLLEGE AND WORKING IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY FOR A WHILE, SHE BECAME A PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER. WORKED AT A MONTESSORI SCHOOL, AND WHEN SHE JOINED THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, SHE JOINED THE MONTRESOI SCHOOL HERE AND WORKED THERE FOR TEN YEARS. HER JOB AT THE MONTRESOI SCHOOL, AND I DIDN'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT MONTESSORI. I'VE BEEN WORKING IN THIS FIELD FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS. I DIDN'T I DIDN'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT MONTESSORI TEACHING UNTIL I GOT UNTIL I STARTED REPRESENTING MISS FANTINE. IT'S A LOT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE DO IN PUBLIC EDUCATION EVERY DAY. WHAT WE FOUND IN THIS CASE AND WHAT THE HEARING OFFICER FOUND, AND TAKE ISSUE WITH MY GOOD FRIEND, MR. BRADSHAW, WHAT THE HEARING OFFICER FOUND WAS THAT HER APPRAISER LAST YEAR WHILE THE APPRAISER WAS A T TEST CERTIFIED APPRAISER, THAT APPRAISER HAD NEVER BEEN IN A MONTESSORY SCHOOL. IT'S ONE THING TO BE T TEST CERTIFIED, AND YOU CAN GO IN AND APPRAISE SOMEBODY. BUT IF YOU'VE NEVER BEEN IN A MONETORY SCHOOL, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE APPRAISING? HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT? HOW DO YOU KNOW IF THIS TEACHER IS [00:45:02] BEING EFFECTIVE IF YOU'VE NEVER BEEN IN A MONESORY SCHOOL? AND YET THEY ALLOWED THIS APPRAISER TO START APPRAISING EDUCATORS IMMEDIATELY, NOT KNOWING WHAT SHE WAS LOOKING AT, NOT KNOWING WHAT SHE WAS APPRAISING, NOT KNOWING IF IT'S BEING EFFECTIVE BECAUSE SHE'D NEVER BEEN IN A MONETORY SCHOOL BEFORE. IT TAKES TWICE AS LONG TO BECOME A MONETORY TEACHER THAT IT DOES TO BECOME A REGULAR TEACHER BECAUSE THE EDUCATION PROCESS, TO BECOME CERTIFIED AS A MONASORY TEACHER TAKES LONGER. YET THEY ALLOW THIS APPRAISER TO START APPRAISING IMMEDIATELY. IT'S NO WONDER THE SPOT SCORES ARE LOWER. SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SHE WAS LOOKING AT. SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SHE WAS EVALUATED. YET WE'RE GOING TO FIRE HER BECAUSE SHE WAS BEING APPRAISED BY SOMEONE WHO DID NOT KNOW WHAT SHE WAS LOOKING AT. I TAKE ISSUE WITH MR. BRADSHAW ON FINDING OF FACT NUMBER 14. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE HEARING OFFICER FOUND. WHEN YOU LOOK AT FINDING OF FACT NUMBER 14, HE SAID, AND I QUOTE, FANTINE RESPONDED TO ALMOST EVERY SPOT CHECK. FANTINE WANTED TO SHED LIGHT ON WHAT DOING AND WHY SHE FELT SHE WAS BEING GRADED UNFAIRLY. WHEN FANTINE WOULD RESPOND TO SPOT CHECKS, SHE WOULD ASK QUESTIONS AND INFORM HER SUPERVISORS OF ISSUES SHE PLANNED ON WORKING ON. THE ADMINISTRATION NEVER RESPONDED, ASSISTED OR OFFERED ANY TYPE OF FEEDBACK. WHAT'S IN THE RECORD IS E MAIL AFTER E MAIL OF REBUTTALS TO HER MEMOS THAT WERE IGNORED? ALL SHE GOT BACK FROM THEM WAS RECEIVED. THANK YOU. THEY NEVER OFFERED HER ANY SUBSTANTIAL FEEDBACK WHEN SHE ASKED FOR ASSISTANCE OR HELP AFTER SHE GOT A SPOT CHECK. WHAT'S THE SPOT CHECK FOR IF YOU'RE GOING TO ASK FOR ASSISTANCE ON IT AND YOU GET NOTHING. HOW WAS A PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR TO SHOW GROWTH IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR ASSISTANCE AND YOU GET NOTHING IN RETURN. THEN THEY COME IN AND SAY, YOU DIDN'T SHOW GROWTH. HOW CAN YOU SHOW GROWTH THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS JUST GOING TO SAY RECEIVE? THANK YOU. CAN YOU COME MODEL A LESSON FOR ME? RECEIVE. THANK YOU. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS TO ME? I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. RECEIVED. THANK YOU. YOU CAME IN TODAY AND YOU TOLD ME TO DO DO THIS WITH MY CHILDREN. CAN YOU SHOW ME HOW TO DO IT? RECEIVE, THANK YOU. YOU DIDN'T SHOW GROWS, WE'RE GOING TO FIRE YOU. WELL, I ASKED YOU TO HELP ME, WE WOULDN'T DO IT. RECEIVE. THANK YOU. YOU'RE FIRED. WHERE IS THE ASSISTANCE WHEN SOMEONE NEEDS THE HELP? IS THIS WHAT YOU INTENDED? IS THIS WHAT YOU INTENDED WHEN YOU DEVELOPED THE SPOT CHECK SYSTEM? WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU THESE FORMS. WE'RE NOT GOING TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU. WE'RE NOT GOING TO SHOW YOU HOW TO DO IT. IT'S JUST BANG YOU'RE OUT. IS THAT THE SYSTEM YOU INTENDED? IS THAT HOW YOU INTENDED THIS SYSTEM TO WORK? I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU INTENDED BY THIS. >> THAT'S NOT AND THAT'S WHAT THE HEARING OFFICER FOUND. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT IS BECAUSE THE HEARING OFFICER FOUND THAT FANTINE ASKED FOR COACHING. THIS IS NUMBER 9 ON PAGE 4. FANTINE ASKED FOR COACHING AND NEVER RECEIVED ANY. INSTEAD, DOCTOR BROWN GAVE FANTINE A GROWTH PLAN. THE GROWTH PLAN WAS VERY GENERIC. THERE WAS NOT ANY SPECIFIC WAY OF SHOWING HOW IT WAS GOING TO HELP FANTINE ACHIEVE THE GOALS. FANTINE INQUIRED OF HER ADMINISTRATION ABOUT HOW TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS WITH LITTLE OR NO RESPONSE. SHE WAS GIVEN SOME COACHING AND ONE MODEL LESSON. THERE WAS ALSO WEEKLY PLC MEETINGS ON CAMPUS WITH TEACHER PEERS AND PLC MEETINGS. EVERY CAMPUS AND HISD HAS WEEKLY PLC MEETINGS. THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED. IF YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE SOMEBODY A GROWTH PLAN, IT'S INCUMBENT TO WORK WITH THEM ON THE GROWTH PLAN. NO GIVE THEM ONE THAT HAS NO SPECIFIC WAY OF SHOWING GROWTH. WE'VE BEEN COMPLAINING FOR YEARS THAT GROWTH PLANS ARE MERELY A WAY TO EXIT SOMEONE OUT OF THE SYSTEM. THIS SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT FOR YEARS. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS GROWTH PLAN WAS INTENDED TO DO. EXIT HER OUT THE DOOR BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GIVE HER A WAY TO SHOW THE GROWTH. IF YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM A GROWTH PLAN, MAKE IT A WAY THAT THEY CAN SHOW YOU GROWTH AT THE END OF THE DAY. NOT GIVE THEM A GROWTH PLAN THAT THERE'S NO WAY, NO ABILITY TO SHOW GROWTH, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID TO MISS FANTINE. THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT THE HEARING OFFICER FOUND THAT THIS WAS A SETUP FOR FAILURE IN THE BEGINNING, AND THERE WAS NO WAY FOR HER TO SHOW GROWTH AT THE END OF THE DAY. THAT'S WHAT HE FOUND. [00:50:01] SHE TRIED RELENTLESSLY TO GET HELP FROM HER ADMINISTRATION, AND THE ADMINISTRATION IGNORED HER ALL YEAR LONG. SHE WANTED HELP. SHE SOUGHT HELP. SHE ASKED FOR HELP ALL YEAR LONG AND THEY IGNORED HER THE WHOLE TIME. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? IS THAT WHAT THIS BOARD STANDS FOR? YOU'RE JUST GOING TO IGNORE THE TEACHERS WHEN THEY'RE ASKING FOR HELP. WHEN THEY'RE BEGGING FOR HELP, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO IGNORE IT, AND THEN FIRE THEM. YOU'RE ABOUT TO GO BACK AND COUNSEL WITH YOUR LAWYER. IF YOU'RE JUST GOING TO GO BACK THERE AND COME OUT HERE AND VOTE THREE TO NOTHING TO FIRE HER, THEN THIS SYSTEM MEANS NOTHING. THIS HEARING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DID NOTHING TO HELP A TEACHER WHO WAS ASKING FOR ASSISTANCE. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WANT YOUR TEACHERS TO SHOW GROWTH. SHE WAS TICKING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. HAD THEY MERELY DONE ANYTHING TO HELP HER, SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE. THEY DID NOTHING. SHE DESERVES BETTER THAN WHAT SHE GOT. ACCEPT WHAT THE HEARING OFFICER DID, ACCEPT HIS RECOMMENDATION. IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING, THEN REDUCE HER TO PROBATION FOR ONE YEAR. YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE YOU DON'T HAVE TO MODIFY ANYTHING TO DO THAT. YOU CAN JUST CHANGE THE RESULT AND GIVE HER PROBATION FOR ONE YEAR. IF THAT DOESN'T WORK, YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK HERE. AGAIN, NEXT YEAR, YOU JUST WRITE HER A LETTER. THAT'S A GOOD RESULT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. MR. BRADSHAW, DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A REBUTTAL STATEMENT? >> EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU. AGAIN, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MR. TRIDCO WE'VE BEEN TRYING THESE CASES FOR A WHILE. AGAIN, HIS LANGUAGE IS EXACTLY THE LANGUAGE THE HEARING OFFICER USED. NEVER HAPPENED. I JUST NOT TRUE. THE WHOLE RECORD IS LITTERED WITH ALL THE HELP. THEY TRIED TO GIVE HER ALL THE MEETINGS, ALL THE FOLLOW UP SPOTS THAT SHOWED THAT THEY WERE IN FACT MODELING. IN FACT, THE HEARING OFFICER IN FINDING NUMBER 9 MAKES THE FINDING THAT SHE WAS GIVEN A MODEL LESSON BY MISS RIDE, WHO WAS THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL AND HER APPRAISER. ONE THING THAT MR. TRIDCO LEFT OUT WAS THE FACT THAT IT WASN'T JUST HIS EXCUSE ME, HER OFFICIAL APPRAISAL APPRAISER, IT WAS ALSO THE PRINCIPAL, DOCTOR BROWN, WHO HAD BEEN THERE FOR FIVE, FOUR YEARS, AS PRINCIPAL AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL AND HAD TAUGHT FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO THAT, AND HAD ALL THE SAME CERTIFICATIONS. HER SCORES WERE ACTUALLY LOWERED. IF YOU LOOK AT IT IF YOU WANT TO COMPARE THEM. IN THE END, AND THERE REALLY WASN'T A GROWTH PLAN JUST TO BE CLEAR. IT WAS A SUPPORT PLAN BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE DISTRICT USES NOW. THEY DON'T USE OFFICIAL GROWTH PLANS. THAT'S AN OLD TERM THAT CHRIS AND I HAVE BEEN KICKING AROUND FOR YEARS, BUT IT'S NOT HERE ANYMORE. IT WAS A SUPPORT PLAN. EXHIBIT 7 IS THAT SUPPORT PLAN, IT LISTS ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO TOGETHER TO MAKE HER A PROFICIENT AND IT NEVER HAPPENED. THAT WAS DONE IN AUGUST AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SCHOOL YEAR. >> SURE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? GO AHEAD. >> YES, FOR MR. TRIDCO. THERE'S THIS PARADIGM THAT'S BEING PAINTED, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PLANNING AND COACHING. I'D BE CURIOUS HOW DO YOU DEFINE COACHING AND WHAT'S THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR THAT TO, BE SATISFIED IN YOUR OPINION? >> IT'S NOT THE SAME FOR EVERYBODY. IT DEPENDS ON, I THINK THE INDIVIDUAL CASE AND INDIVIDUAL FACTS IN THIS CASE. IN THIS CASE, MISS FANTINE ASKED FOR COACHING AND ASSISTANCE, MULTIPLE TIMES AFTER THE S. >> YOU SAY IT'S A SUBJECTIVE DETERMINATION BY THE PERSON RECEIVING THE COACHING. >> YES. >> AS TO WHEN THEY'VE RECEIVED ENOUGH COACHING TO QUALIFY AS COACHING. >> WELL, AND IN THIS CASE, YOU'VE GOT A MISS RYE, THE APPRAISER WHO HAD NEVER BEEN AT A AT A MONTESSORI SCHOOL DOING I'M GOING TO SAY 90% OF THE SPOT CHECKS. WE DON'T HAVE A GOOD EVALUATION OF WHAT HER LEVEL WAS BECAUSE WE [00:55:03] HAVE A PERSON WHO DOESN'T KNOW MONTESSORI EDUCATION BEING THE MAIN EVALUATOR. HOW DO WE KNOW WHERE SHE REALLY WAS? >>THERE'S ALSO A ELEMENT IN YOUR OPINION OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE COACH NOT SATISFYING A CERTAIN THRESHOLD BEFORE IT'S IF ANY FEEDBACK IS CONSIDERED COACHING? >> CORRECT. I GET THAT SHE'S T TEST QUALIFIED, BUT SHE DOESN'T WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW THE MONTESSORI SYSTEM, HOW CAN YOU SAY YOU'RE NOT DOING THIS. NOW, SHE WAS WILLING TO SAY EVERY TIME, TELL ME WHAT I'M DOING WRONG, AND I'LL FIX IT. BUT THERE WASN'T THE FEEDBACK WASN'T COMING THE OTHER WAY. WHEN WE IF WE DON'T MEET IN THE MIDDLE AND START FIXING THE PROBLEM, HOW DO WE KNOW IF IT WASN'T EVER GOING TO TICK IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION? >> THANK YOU. QUESTION [INAUDIBLE]. >> THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATION. IT'S NOW TIME FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE OUR DECISION ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> GIVE BACK PAGE. I SEE. WE DO NEED CLOSION. GREAT. LET'S GO BACK THEN. >> THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN MEANINGS ACT SECTIONS 551.004 THROUGH 551.089. SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION, VOTE OR DECISION ON ANY MATTER CONSIDERED IN THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED, SUCH FINAL ACTION, VOTE OR DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN AT THE OPEN MEETING CONVEYED BY THIS NOTICE UPON THE RECONVENING OF THE PUBLIC MEETING OR AT A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD UPON NOTICE THEREOF. THE BOARD HAS RECESS TO CLOSE SESSION AT 5:59 PM. ON NOVEMBER 20TH, 2025 [MUSIC]. [01:02:19] >> GOOD. THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF HOUSTON AND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION. THE TIME IS 6:34 PM. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GRANT PETITIONER'S PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN. THAT THE BOARD REJECT CONCLUSION OF LAW FOUR, REJECT AND CHANGE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SIX THROUGH 11, AND CHANGE FINDINGS OF FACT NINE AND 14 AS OUTLINED IN PETITIONER'S PROPOSAL. THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS AMENDED BY PETITIONER'S PROPOSAL, AND THAT CONSISTENT WITH THIS MOTION, THAT THE BOARD TERMINATE THE EMPLOYMENT OF MARIA FANTINE AND NON RENEW HER TERM CONTRACT EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. >> IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. MOTION TO SECOND ANY DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. LETTER NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BOARD RELATIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 6:36 PM. HE'S A LITTLE BIT. ARE WE READY TO PROCEED WITH THE NEXT MATTER? >> NO GOOD TO GO. GREAT. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF JAMIE RICO TEACHER AT MANDARIN IMMERSION MAGNET SCHOOL. HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS EMPLOYEE WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING. [01:05:02] IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION, DURING THIS HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEYS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071. IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. FOR THE RECORD, CHRIS TRIDCO TRIDCO LAW REPRESENTS JAMIE RUSSO IS PRESENT. JAMIE RUSSO IS ALSO PRESENT, ELLEN SPALDIN, SPALDIN NICHOLS AND LAMP AND LANGS REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION ARE PRESENT. KAASHA WOODS HIC GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT. MISS TRIDCO, DO YOU WISH TO BE OPEN OR CLOSED? OPEN, PLEASE. OPEN. >>THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER TO ACCEPT, REJECT, OR CHANGE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW, AND PROPOSAL BASED ON THE REVIEW OF THIS RECORD. WE MAY REJECT OR CHANGE A FINDING OF FACT. IF, AFTER REVIEWING THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER, WE FIND IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. IF WE REJECT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE ANY CHANGES OR MAKE ANY CHANGES, WE MUST STATE THE REASON AND THE LEGAL BASIS IN WRITING. MS BALDIN, YOU WILL BE FIRST. YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION OF THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. TRUTCO. MS BALDIN, YOU MAY RESERVE YOUR PART OF YOUR TIME, YOUR 10 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPLIT THAT OR JUST? >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> PERFECT. YOU MAY BEGIN. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THE HEARING EXAMINER HAS RECOMMENDED THAT MS RUSSEL CONTRACT BE RENEWED. WE ARE ASKING YOU TO MAKE CHANGES TO THAT RECOMMENDATION AND FIND THAT THERE ARE TWO REASONS IN YOUR BOARD POLICY DFF- DFBB TO THE NON-RENEWAL OF MS RUSSEL'S CONTRACT. AS YOU KNOW, THE HEARING EXAMINER MAKES FINDINGS OF FACT, BUT THE BOARD MAKES THE ULTIMATE DETERMINATION ON WHETHER THE FACTS WARRANT NON-RENEWAL. TO DO SO, THE BOARD MAY RELY ON UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THE RECORD REGARDLESS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS. WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO CHANGE A CORRECTLY-LABELED FINDING OF FACT OF THE HEARING EXAMINER. WE ARE ASKING YOU TO RELY ON THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO FIND NON-RENEWAL IS PROPER. THE DOCUMENT WITH HISD'S CHANGES IS LONG, BUT IT REALLY BOILS DOWN TO TWO REASONS REPEATED OVER AND OVER. BASED ON THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, NON-RENEWAL IS PROPER BECAUSE MS RUSSEL VIOLATED BOARD POLICY. BASED ON THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, NON-RENEWAL IS PROPER BECAUSE MS RUSSEL HAD DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT TO HER IN APPRAISALS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS. YOU ONLY HAVE TO FIND ONE OF THOSE TO SUPPORT NON-RENEWAL. AS YOU ALL KNOW, SUPERINTENDENT MILES HAS CLEARLY DIRECTED THAT ALL CAMPUSES AND ALL TEACHERS USE CERTAIN INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES, INCLUDING MULTIPLE RESPONSE STRATEGIES OR MRS. THESE STRATEGIES ENSURE THAT ALL STUDENTS ARE LEARNING, NOT JUST THE COUPLE OF STUDENTS WHO RAISE THEIR HANDS. MS RUSSEL ADMITS, UNDISPUTED, THAT SHE KNOWS SHE WAS REQUIRED TO USE THOSE STRATEGIES, BUT SHE DID NOT. OVER AND OVER AGAIN, HER ADMINISTRATORS COACHED HER TO USE THESE STRATEGIES, AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, SHE USED THEM INCONSISTENTLY AT BEST. IN FACT, AT ONE POINT, AN ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL WROTE ON ONE OF HER OBSERVATIONS, PLEASE, USE MRS THROUGHOUT YOUR LESSON. HER PERFORMANCE SCORES WERE THEREFORE LOW, AND SO AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THE BOARD PROPOSED HER NON-RENEWAL. IT'S UNDISPUTED THAT WHAT HAPPENED NEXT IS THAT MS RUSSEL SENT AN EMAIL THROUGH YOUR HISD EMAIL SYSTEM TO THE PARENTS OF THE 44 STUDENTS IN HER CLASS COMPLAINING. SHE SENT THIS EMAIL IN HER WEEKLY UPDATE. THE UPDATE WHERE SHE SAYS, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING THIS WEEK. THIS IS THE NEXT THING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. INSTEAD OF THAT, WHAT SHE SAID TO THE PARENTS WAS SHE BLASTED HISD., SHE BLASTED THE SUPERINTENDENT, AND SHE BLASTED THE DISTRICT'S INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES. THAT'S HISD EXHIBIT 3. I'M GOING TO READ SOME OF THIS EMAIL TO YOU. SHE SAYS, THIS IS MY STORY TO TELL, AND I WANT YOU TO HEAR IT FROM ME. ON APRIL 14, I WAS GIVEN THE CHOICE TO RESIGN OR BE TERMINATED. MS TAT, MY APPRAISER, INFORMED ME THAT I HAVE LOW PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR MY SPOTS. THIS IS WHEN SHE COMES IN TO APPRAISE ME FOR 15 MINUTES AT A TIME, [01:10:03] AND I MUST BE DOING THE PRACTICES NOW DECIDED BY THE NEW SUPERINTENDENT. I WILL APPEAL, AND I WILL FIGHT THIS WRONGFUL TERMINATION. IT HAS BEEN A VERY DIFFICULT YEAR WITH CONSTANT INTERRUPTIONS AND BEING COACHED TO DO STRATEGIES I DO NOT FEEL ARE BEST PRACTICES. THAT WAS TO YOUR PARENTS. THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT THE CHANGES IN HISD HAVE BEEN CONTROVERSIAL. MS RUSSEL, IN HER CAPACITY AS YOUR TEACHER, USING YOUR EMAIL SYSTEM, FUELED THAT FIRE. SHE WANTED TO MAKE SURE HER PARENTS KNEW THAT SHE DID NOT AGREE WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT, AND SHE DID NOT AGREE WITH HIS INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES. WHAT MS RUSSEL DID IN THAT EMAIL COMPLETELY UNDERMINES THE HISD ADMINISTRATION AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF HER CAMPUS. WHAT MS RUSSEL DID IN THAT EMAIL WAS DESTRUCTIVE TO THE CULTURE OF THE CAMPUS AND TO HISD. UNBELIEVABLY, IN THE HEARING, TWO TIMES, I ASKED MS RUSSEL, AND TWO TIMES SHE DOUBLED DOWN AND SAID SHE BELIEVED THAT EMAIL WAS APPROPRIATE. WE ARE ASKING THE BOARD TO FIND THAT THAT EMAIL VIOLATES HISD BOARD POLICY DH LOCAL, WHICH REQUIRES ALL EMPLOYEES TO WORK TOGETHER IN A COOPERATIVE SPIRIT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE DISTRICT. IN EMAILING HER DISAGREEMENT WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT AND HIS STRATEGIES, SHE DID EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. IN TELLING THE PARENTS OF THE STUDENTS IN HER CLASS THAT SHE DID NOT BELIEVE THE STRATEGIES WERE BEST PRACTICES, SHE WAS NOT WORKING COOPERATIVELY IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE DISTRICT. IN ADDITION, DH LOCAL REQUIRES ALL EMPLOYEES TO RAISE CONCERNS OR COMPLAINTS THROUGH APPROPRIATE CHANNELS. USING HISD EMAIL TO EMAIL HISD PARENTS ABOUT HER EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE AND HER DISAGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRICT'S MANDATED STRATEGIES IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE CHANNEL. THE HEARING EXAMINER SEEMED TO BELIEVE THAT MS RUSSEL HAD A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SEND THE EMAIL. THAT IS A 100% INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW ON FREE SPEECH AS DECIDED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS DO NOT APPLY TO EMPLOYEES WHEN ACTING IN THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES. WHEN MS RUSSEL SENT THAT EMAIL THROUGH YOUR EMAIL SYSTEM, AS A WEEKLY UPDATE TO THE PARENTS OF THE STUDENTS IN HER CLASSROOM, SHE WAS ACTING WITHIN HER OFFICIAL DUTIES. THAT'S A VIOLATION OF HISD BOARD POLICY DH, AND SHE SHOULD BE NON-RENEWED FOR THAT REASON ALONE. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT REASON ALONE. INDEPENDENTLY, MS RUSSEL SHOULD BE NON-RENEWED FOR DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT TO HER IN DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING HER MOY, MIDDLE OF THE YEAR, AND EOY, END OF THE YEAR EVALUATIONS. MS RUSSEL HAD MANY SPOT OBSERVATIONS. THE HEARING EXAMINER FOUND THAT THE SPOT OBSERVATIONS WERE TOO INCONSISTENT TO BE CONSIDERED DEFICIENCIES. WE DISAGREE, BUT WE'RE NOT HERE TO FIGHT THAT TODAY. PUTTING THE SPOTS ASIDE, IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT MS RUSSEL'S MOY AND EOY CLEARLY STATES DEFICIENCIES. IT'S UNDISPUTED BECAUSE MS RUSSEL ADMITTED IT IN THE HEARING. IN THE HEARING, MS RUSSEL TESTIFIED THAT THE MOY POINTS OUT AREAS WHERE SHE CAN IMPROVE. AS TO MS RUSSEL'S EOY, MS RUSSEL WAS RATED DEVELOPING IN THREE AREAS, MONITORING AND ADJUST, CLASSROOM CULTURE, AND GOAL SETTING. MS RUSSEL TESTIFIED THAT HER RATINGS OF DEVELOPING MEAN THAT SHE WAS NOT PROFICIENT AND THAT SHE NEEDED WORK IN THAT AREA. WE BELIEVE NON-RENEWAL IS PROPER FOR THAT REASON ALONE AS WELL. REMEMBER, YOU ONLY HAVE TO FIND ONE OF THE REASONS IN ORDER TO UPHOLD NON-RENEWAL. MS RUSSEL, AND YOU'VE HEARD TONIGHT, IS GOING TO SHARE WITH YOU THAT HER STUDENT SHOWED GROWTH. THE HEARING EXAMINER FOUND THAT TO BE SIGNIFICANT. BUT MS RUSSEL AND THE HEARING EXAMINER MISSED THE POINT. FIRST, STUDENTS AT THE MANDARIN IMMERSION SCHOOL ARE GENERALLY GOING TO SHOW GROWTH. SECOND, REGARDLESS OF GROWTH, MS RUSSEL WAS FAILING TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND STRATEGIES OF THE HISD ADMINISTRATION. THAT'S NOT OKAY. THERE'S NO EXCEPTION IN THE SUPERINTENDENT'S RULES, AND SHE ADMITTED THAT IN THE HEARING, NO MATTER WHAT, SHE WAS REQUIRED TO TEACH USING HIS STRATEGIES. SHE'S PROBABLY GOING TO TELL YOU THAT HER SCORES WERE MISCALCULATED AT THE END OF THE YEAR. THAT'S HER OPINION. THERE'S TESTIMONY THAT THE PRINCIPAL DISAGREES, BUT THAT'S ALSO NOT THE POINT. THE POINT IS SIMPLE. MS RUSSEL WAS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. SHE DID NOT, AND THEREFORE, SHE HAD DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT TO HER. WHEN SHE GOT NON-RENEWED OR PROPOSED FOR NON-RENEWAL FOR THOSE DEFICIENCIES, SHE BLASTED THIS DISTRICT TO THE PARENTS. WE ASK THAT YOU FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED DECISION SET FORTH IN [01:15:03] FRONT OF YOU IS PROPER AND MAKE THOSE RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION. RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. MR. CREDICO, YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. >> THANK YOU. JAMIE RUSSEL IS A 39-YEAR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR. I WISH I'D HAVE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESENTATIONS THAT YOU HEARD EARLIER. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN UNTIL I GOT HERE. I WISH I WAS THAT SMART. BUT WHAT YOU HEARD EARLIER IS THE PRODUCT OF WHAT YOU EXPECT, I HOPE, FROM YOUR EDUCATORS THAT PARENTS AND YOUNG PEOPLE LIKE THIS YOUNG LADY RIGHT HERE WOULD COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF SOMEONE WHO IS OBVIOUSLY THAT TALENTED, THAT GOOD, AND THAT GOOD AN EDUCATOR, THAT THEY WOULD COME OUT HERE TONIGHT AND TALK TO YOU AND TELL YOU THEIR STORIES AND TELL YOU BETTER THAN I EVER COULD WHAT AN EDUCATOR REALLY IS. WHAT YOU HEARD TONIGHT IS WHAT YOU WANT FROM AN EDUCATOR. MY GOOD FRIEND ELLEN IS RIGHT. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT JAMIE RUSSEL'S CLASS SHOWED 100% GROWTH LAST YEAR. EVERY KID IN HER CLASS SHOWED GROWTH. I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT MIKE MILES SAID IS THE MISSION OF THIS SCHOOL DISTRICT, IS THE MISSION OF EVERY CAMPUS IN HISD, IS TO SHOW GROWTH. IT'S NOT THAT THAT LADY HAS TO SHOW GROWTH, IT'S THAT HER KIDS HAVE TO SHOW GROWTH. IS THAT THESE YOUNG PEOPLE RIGHT HERE, THESE BEAUTIFUL KIDS RIGHT HERE, HAVE TO SHOW GROWTH? IN RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 57. I WANT TO GIVE IT TO YOU IS THE PROOF. [INAUDIBLE] EVERY KID IN HER CLASS LAST YEAR. TRY AS THEY MAY TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THIS LADY CAN'T TEACH. THAT'S EVERY KID IN HER CLASS. EVERY ONE OF THEM SHOWED GROWTH. EVERY CHILD IN HER CLASS. THEY CAN SAY THAT HER SPOTS DIDN'T LOOK GOOD, THAT SHE WASN'T USING MRS STRATEGIES, THIS, THAT, AND THE OTHER. EVERY CHILD IN HER CLASS SHOWED GROWTH LAST YEAR. WHAT MORE ARE YOU LOOKING FOR IN A TEACHER? LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT. SHE TALKED TO HOUSTON, SHE DIDN'T TALK TO HIM. SHE WENT ON THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE WEB PAGE AND SAID SOMETHING NEGATIVE ABOUT MIKE MILES. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. THAT'S WHAT STARTED THIS. THEN SHE STARTED GETTING THOSE SPOTS. IT WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH THAT HER SPOTS WERE ALL GOOD. THEN THEY STARTED SAYING THEY PICKED OUT IN THE HEARING IN HER SPOT SCORES IN HER SPOT SHEETS, THAT THE MRS STRATEGIES. BUT WHAT WE SHOWED IN THE HEARING WAS THAT IN THE SAME MRS SHEETS, THEY'RE SAYING IN ONE SECTION, YOU WEREN'T USING THE MRS STRATEGIES, WHEN YOU GO TO THE PRAISE SECTION OF THE VERY SAME EXHIBITS, THEY SAY, IN PRAISE, GOOD JOB USING MRS STRATEGIES, IN THE VERY SAME EXHIBITS. THE PROBLEM IS, AND WHAT THE HEARING OFFICER FOUND IS THAT THE SPOT SCORES ARE ARBITRARY AND SUGGESTIVE BECAUSE THEY GIVE YOU A PRAISE IN ONE SECTION AND THEY NEGATIVE IN THE VERY SAME SPOT. THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THIS WHOLE SYSTEM. IN EVERY SPOT WHERE THEY'RE TELLING HER SHE'S NOT USING THE MRS STRATEGIES, YOU CAN LOOK RIGHT UP ABOVE IT AND FIND WHERE THEY'RE PRAISING HER FOR USING MRS STRATEGIES. THEY CAN'T STAND HERE AND TELL YOU SHE WASN'T USING THEM WHEN THEY WERE PRAISING HER FOR USING THEM IN THE VERY SAME EXHIBITS. THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE. THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE IS THAT THIS LADY SPEAKS HER MIND. BUT WHEN SHE'S SPEAKING HER MIND, SHE'S TEACHING THESE BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN, [01:20:02] SHE'S MOVING THEM ALONG. SHE'S GETTING THEM INTO SECOND-GRADE READING ON A THIRD OR FOURTH, OR FIFTH-GRADE LEVEL. SHE'S DOING EVERYTHING YOU ASKED HER TO DO. BUT THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. IN THE HEARING, WE TALKED ABOUT THINGS LIKE GETTING A BRAIN BREAK. THAT SHE WAS OBJECTING BECAUSE THE SYSTEM THAT WE PUT IN PLACE IN THIS DISTRICT IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR YOUNG MINDS, BECAUSE YOUNG MINDS NEED BRAIN BREAKS. THEY NEED TIME TO LET THEIR MINDS REST AND ABSORB THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TEACHING THEM. THESE ARE NOT HIGH SCHOOL KIDS. THEY CAN'T GO ALL DAY. THEY NEED THOSE BREAKS. THAT'S WHAT SHE WAS OBJECTING TO. WHEN I ASKED THE PRINCIPAL ABOUT A BRAIN BREAK, SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS. SHE WAS SUGGESTING THAT THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE DOING ARE BRAIN BREAKS WHEN THEY'RE STILL TEACHING. SHE'S USING THE WRONG TERMS BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS. SHE'S GRADING HER DOWN FOR DOING THINGS THAT SHE'S BEEN DOING FOR 40 YEARS, WHEN SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS. THAT'S WHY HER CHILDREN HAD A 100% GROWTH, BUT SHE WAS MARKED DOWN ON THE SPOT CHECKS BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE'S DOING. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT GOOD TEACHING IS. YOU PUT IN A SYSTEM WITHOUT TALKING TO PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN TEACHING FOR 40 YEARS. THAT'S WHY ALL THESE PARENTS CAME OUT AND SAID TO YOU, KEEP THIS LADY. SHE KNOWS WHAT SHE'S DOING. ONE OF THESE PARENTS, THAT ONE RIGHT THERE, SAID, I WANT A TEACHER WHO'S TALKING TO MY CHILDREN ABOUT HOW TO WRITE. HOW TO TALK. I WANT MY CHILD TO COME HOME AND TALK TO ME IN COMPLETE SENTENCES. I DON'T WANT MY CHILD TO COME HOME AND KNOWS HOW TO HOLD UP A WHITE CARD. I WANT MY CHILD TO TALK IN SENTENCES, AND THAT'S WHAT SHE DOES. THIS IS NOT ABOUT SOMEONE WHO EXERCISES THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND GETS FIRED FOR IT, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. IF YOU FIRE THIS LADY, YOU'RE FIRING AN INSTITUTION WHO HAS TAUGHT FOR FOUR DECADES, WHO WAS TEACHING BEFORE MY CHILDREN WERE BORN. I'M 65. ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO DO THIS? ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO TAKE HER OUT OF THE CLASSROOM BECAUSE SHE ANGERED MIKE MILES? IS THAT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT? IS THAT WHERE THIS IS GOING? IT'S WRONG, WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO DO. IT'S WRONG. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU MAY PROCEED. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FIRST OF ALL, LET'S ADDRESS THE COMMENT. THE COMMENT SHE MADE IN THE NEWSPAPER WAS IN JUNE OF 2024. SHE WAS PROPOSED FOR NON-RENEWAL IN APRIL OF 2025. IF HISD HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE COMMENT THAT SHE MADE, HISD WOULD HAVE TAKEN ACTION AT THE TIME OF THE COMMENT. YOU CAN SEE THE COMMENT SHE MADE IN EXHIBIT 49. BUT IT'S NOT ABOUT THE COMMENT, AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT HER PERFORMANCE WAS RATED AS UNACCEPTABLE. EXCUSE ME, LET ME GO BACK. THAT HER SPOTS WERE CONCERNING AND NOT PROFICIENT IN THE 23, 24 SCHOOL YEAR BEFORE SHE MADE THE COMMENT. THIS ISN'T ABOUT HER SPOTS GETTING BAD AFTER SHE MADE A COMMENT. IN FACT, THAT QUOTE I READ TO YOU, "PLEASE PLEASE USE MRS," THAT WAS FROM THE 23, 24 SCHOOL YEAR. SHE WAS HAVING PERFORMANCE CONCERNS BEFORE THE COMMENT. GROWTH IS NOT THE POINT. GROWTH IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. HOWEVER, WE HAVE RULES AND INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. IF YOU LET ONE TEACHER DO WHAT MY FRIEND, MR. TRITCO SAID AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M NOT DOING IT BECAUSE I KNOW BETTER BECAUSE I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR FOUR DECADES. IF YOU LET ONE TEACHER DO THAT, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LET ALL TEACHERS INSTRUCT WITHOUT USING THE METHODS THAT WE KNOW ARE WORKING IN HISD. WE'VE MADE TREMENDOUS GROWTH IN THE LAST TWO YEARS IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND THAT IS BECAUSE YOUR INSTRUCTIONAL LEADER HAS PUT INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES IN PLACE THAT ARE WORKING. IF YOU TELL ONE TEACHER, THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO THOSE ANYMORE, THEN YOU HAVE TO LET ALL TEACHERS NOT DO IT ANYMORE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? >> YES. GO AHEAD. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ON [01:25:04] THE OTHER TEACHERS AT THE MANDARIN IMMERSION SCHOOL WHO ARE USING THE DISTRICT APPROVE INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS. I LOVE THIS GROWTH. I THINK IT'S WONDERFUL. I LOVE THESE CHILDREN. IT'S WONDERFUL. I APPRECIATE ALL COMING OUT AND DOING YOUR THING. IT'S GREAT. I IMAGINE THERE ARE OTHER STUDENTS OTHER TEACHERS WHO ARE FOLLOWING THE DISTRICT'S INSTRUCTION AT MANDARIN IMMERSION SCHOOL AT THIS GRADE LEVEL WITH A SIMILAR STUDENT PROFILE. ARE THEY SEEING THIS GROWTH IN THEIR ADHERENCE TO THE DISTRICT'S INSTRUCTIONAL STANDARDS? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I HAVE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION BASED ON WHAT'S IN THE RECORD. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT MANDARIN IMMERSION SCHOOL HAS ALWAYS BEEN A HIGHLY RATED SCHOOL. IT WAS RATED AS A 95 FOR MANY YEARS. IN THIS LAST RATING, IT WAS RATED AS A 96. THE PRINCIPAL TESTIFIED THAT SHE IS REQUIRING ALL THE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES OF THE SUPERINTENDENT TO BE PUT IN PLACE BY ALL HER TEACHERS. YOU CAN SEE 95 IS NOT BAD, 95 IS PRETTY PHENOMENAL. 96 IS BETTER. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES THAT SHE IS REQUIRING, AND WE DIDN'T TALK SPECIFICALLY IN THE HEARING ABOUT OTHER TEACHERS, BUT WE DID HAVE A PRINCIPAL WHO SAYS, THIS IS WHAT I'M MANDATING AND I'M EXPECTING IT AND THE THEY'RE RATING THAT. >> WE DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE OF EVERY CLASS, LIKE MISS RUSSO KEPT RECORDS SPECIFICALLY OF HER CHILDREN. I CAN'T SAY THAT EVERY CLASS HIT 100%. IF EVERY CLASS HIT 100%, THEY WOULDN'T BE 96, THEY'D BE 100. IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO SAY THAT EVERY CLASS HIT 100% LIKE MISS RUSSO DID. AS MISS RUSSO SAID IN HER TWO MINUTES, SHE GOT A PERFORMANCE BONUS. I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW HOW THOSE BONUSES WORK, BUT SHE DID GET A PERFORMANCE BONUS DURING TIME WHEN SHE WAS BEING TERMINATED FROM THE DISTRICT. >> JUST AS A FOLLOW-UP TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND, IN YOUR OPINION, FOLLOWING THE DISTRICT'S INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS, PUT STUDENTS AT AN EDUCATIONAL RISK. THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING, AND SO THEREFORE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO REMEDIATE. >> IS IT MY PERSONAL OPINION, OR ARE YOU ASKING GENERALLY? THE MODEL THAT IS BEING USED IS NOT CONDUCIVE FOR FIRST GRADE STUDENTS BECAUSE OF THE RIGOR THAT IS BEING USED. IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR TIME FOR A FIRST GRADER TO REST AND ABSORB. IT'S TOO RIGOROUS. IT MAY BE FINE FOR SOMEONE WHO'S 17-YEARS-OLD, 16-YEARS-OLD. FOR A FIRST GRADER, THEY CAN'T WORK AT THAT PACE ALL DAY LONG. THEY NEED WHAT IS A BRAIN BREAK, TIME TO ABSORB REST. WHEN I WAS A KID, WE HAD RECESS. I UNDERSTAND WE DON'T HAVE THAT ANYMORE. BUT WE HAD RECESS. THAT WAS THE BRAIN BREAK. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS AND NOW TIME FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE OUR DECISION BEFORE US. I DO BELIEVE WE ARE GOING TO GO TO A CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSE SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, OPEN MEANINGS ACT SUBSECTION 551.004-3551.089. SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION VOTE OR DECISION ON ANY MATTER CONSIDERING THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED? SUCH FINAL ACTION VOTE OR DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN AT AN OPEN MEETING CONVEYED BY THIS NOTICE UPON RECONVENING THE PUBLIC MEETING OR AT A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD UPON NOTICE THEREOF. THE BOARD HAS RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION AT 7:01 PM, NOVEMBER 20TH 2025. WE'RE GOOD. THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION. THE TIME IS 7:17 PM. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? >> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD MAKE ALL THE CHANGES TO THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, NO MATTER HOW LABELED AS SET FORTH IN THE PLEADING, SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATION TITLED DECISION OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD PROPOSED BY ADMINISTRATION. FOR THE REASONS AND LEGAL BASIS AS SET FORTH IN SUCH PLEADING, THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE HEARING OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION, FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS AMENDED BY THE PLEADING AND THAT CONSISTENT WITH THIS MOTION, [01:30:01] THE BOARD NON-RENEW JAMIE RUSSO'S TERM CONTRACT AND TERMINATE OR EMPLOYMENT EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. >> IS THERE A SECOND? MOTION IN A SECOND, PLEASE VOTE. ON FAVOR OF SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> THE BOARD HAS VOTED AND A LETTER NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BOARD RELATIONS WITHIN 10 DAYS. THIS LETTER SHALL INCLUDE THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW OF THE SCHOOL BOARD AND ANY GRANT OF RELIEF OBTAINED. FURTHERMORE, THE LETTER SHALL STATE THE REASON AND LEGAL BASIS FOR REJECTING OR CHANGING THE FINDINGS OF FACT OR CONCLUSION OF LAW PROPOSED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER. THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 7:19 PM. ARE THE PARTIES READY TO START? THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF DAWN MOSES, TEACHER AT BARRICK ELEMENTARY. HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS ABOUT DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS EMPLOYEES WHO ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARINGS REQUEST AN OPEN HEARING. IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION, DURING THIS HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEY UNDER THE TERMS OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 5571.071. ANY BOARD MEMBER WHO WISHES TO SEEK ADVICE OF COUNCIL, PLEASE TELL ME. FOR THE RECORD, JAMES FALLON OF JAMES T. FALLON III, LLC IS REPRESENTING DAWN MOSES IS PRESENT. DAWN MOSES IS ALSO PRESENT, BRYCE CASSATT OF SPALDING, NICHOLAS LANGOS, REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENT. NATASHA WOODS HST GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT. MR. FALLON, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE AN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? >> WE'LL STAY OPEN. >> THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER TO ACCEPT, REJECT OR CHANGE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW, AND PROPOSAL BASED ON THE REVIEW OF THE RECORD. WE MAY REJECT OR CHANGE A FINDING OF FACT, IF AFTER VIEWING THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER, WE FIND THAT IT'S NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. IF WE REJECT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OR MAKE ANY CHANGES, WE MUST STATE THE REASON AND LEGAL BASIS IN WRITING. MR. CASSATT, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST. YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. FOLLOWED BY A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MR. FALLON. YOU MAY RESERVE SOME OF YOUR TIME OR JUST WAIT TIL THE END TO SEE HOW MUCH YOU HAVE LEFT. I'M HAPPY TO LET YOU START. GO AHEAD. >> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MR. PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THIS MATTER, ROLANDA DENT, HAS RECOMMENDED MISS MOSES APPEAL BE GRANTED AND THAT HER TERM CONTRACT BE RENEWED. THE ADMINISTRATION IS ASKING THAT YOU INSTEAD MAKE CHANGES TO MISS DENT'S RECOMMENDATION, ULTIMATELY FINDING THAT TWO REASONS EXIST FROM YOUR BOARD POLICY DFBB (LOCAL) TO NON-RENEW MISS MOSES CONTRACT, NAMELY, THAT MISS MOSES EXHIBITED INSUBORDINATION AND VIOLATED OFFICIAL DIRECTIVES FROM CAMPUS LEADERSHIP, AND TWO, THAT MISS MOSES VIOLATED YOUR BOARD POLICIES DH LOCAL AND EXHIBIT, WHICH, OF COURSE, WE KNOW GOVERN EMPLOYEE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT. THE HEARING EXAMINER MAKES FINDINGS OF FACT, BUT AS WE HAVE HEARD THROUGHOUT THE DIFFERENT PROCEEDING MATTERS TONIGHT, IT IS YOU, THE BOARD WHO MAKES THE ULTIMATE DETERMINATION ON WHETHER THE FACTS WARRANT NON RENEWAL. TO DO SO, THE BOARD MAY RELY ON UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THE RECORD REGARDLESS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS. THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT ASKING YOU AGAIN TO CHANGE ANY CORRECTLY LABELED FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE HEARING EXAMINER. WE ARE AGAIN, INSTEAD ASKING THAT YOU RELY ON UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO FIND THAT NON-RENEWAL IS APPROPRIATE. [01:35:04] HOW DID WE GET HERE AND WHAT HAPPENED? MISS MOSES HAS WORKED IN EDUCATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 25 YEARS. I WISH TO BRIEFLY DISCUSS HER WORK HISTORY. HER EDUCATIONAL WORK HISTORY HAS BEEN DIVERSE. SHE HAS COMPLETED STENTS, WORKING IN MULTIPLE DISTRICTS, BOUNCING AROUND. THIS DISTRICT, HISD, HAS EMPLOYED AND REEMPLOYED MISS MOSES THREE SEPARATE TIMES. MOST RECENTLY, HIST REHIRED MISS MOSES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 2023 THROUGH 2024 SCHOOL YEAR, WHERE SHE WORKED AS A SPECIAL EDUCATION COORDINATOR AND THE DEPARTMENT CHAIR AT SAM HOUSTON HIGH SCHOOL. MOST RECENTLY, HISD EMPLOYED MISS MOSES DURING THE 2024 THROUGH 2025 SCHOOL YEAR, SO THAT LAST SCHOOL YEAR AS A SPECIAL EDUCATION PRE-KINDERGARTEN TEACHER AT BARRICK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AND THAT WAS UNDER A ONE YEAR TERM CONTRACT. TO BE MOST CLEAR FROM THE OUTSET, MISS MOSES ONLY WORKED AT BARRICK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOR SIX OR SEVEN TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS BEFORE CAMPUS LEADERSHIP AND DISTRICT LEADERSHIP, AFTER ENCOUNTERING AND RECEIVING COMPLAINTS ABOUT MISS MOSES PERFORMANCE CONCERNS, DETERMINED THAT BARRICK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THE DISTRICT WOULD BE BEST SERVED IF MISS MOSES WAS RELIEVED OF HER DUTIES AND REASSIGNED AWAY FROM CAMPUS TO HOME DUTY WITH PAY PENDING INVESTIGATIONS INTO MULTIPLE INCIDENTS OF REPORTED MISCONDUCT. I WILL REVISIT AND DISCUSS THOSE CONCERNS IN MORE DETAIL MOMENTARILY. BUT I'D LIKE TO FIRST BRIEFLY WALK YOU ALL THROUGH MISS MOSES TIME AT SAM HOUSTON HIGH SCHOOL. HER TIME ON THAT CAMPUS WAS UNSUCCESSFUL AND CAMPUS LEADERSHIP SPENT SIGNIFICANT TIME IN ENERGY COACHING AND GUIDING MISS MOSES ATTEMPTING TO REMEDY PERFORMANCE CONCERNS. SOME COACHING AND DISCIPLINARY DOCUMENTATION REGARDING MISS MOSES TIME AT SAM HOUSTON HIGH SCHOOL, WHICH OUR HEARING EXAMINER ADMITTED OVER MISS MOSES OBJECTIONS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE RECORD AT HISDS EXHIBITS 4 AND 6. THAT'S PAGES 417-421 OF THE RECORD. I MENTIONED HER PERFORMANCE AT SAM HOUSTON HIGH SCHOOL FROM TWO SCHOOL YEARS AGO FOR A FEW REASONS. FIRST, I REFERENCED THESE DETAILS TO EXPLAIN WHY MISS MOSES, A LONGTIME EDUCATOR BOUNCED AMONGST THREE CAMPUSES AT HISD OVER THE COURSE OF ABOUT 16 MONTHS BEFORE ULTIMATELY BEING REASSIGNED TO HOME DUTY WITH PAY EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 9TH, 2024. THAT IS RIGHT. SHE HAS BEEN AT HOME WITH PAY SINCE OCTOBER 9TH, 2024. I ALSO REFERENCE MISS MOSES PERFORMANCE CONCERNS AT SAM HOUSTON TO ILLUSTRATE THAT WHILE THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND SITUATIONS RESULTING IN WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION AT THAT CAMPUS ARE NATURALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SHE EXPERIENCED AT BARRICK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DURING THIS PAST SCHOOL YEAR. SOME REPEAT ISSUES EXISTED, SUCH AS HER FAILURE TO TIMELY REPORT TO DUTY AS SCHEDULED OR ALTOGETHER, HER FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE PROFESSIONALLY WITH COLLEAGUES AND LEADERSHIP, AND HER FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PROFESSIONAL DEMEANOR WHEN SHE GREW FRUSTRATED FOR WHATEVER REASONS. SAM HOUSTON HIGH SCHOOL LEADERSHIP ADDRESSED THESE ISSUES WITH MISS MOSES, BOTH VERBALLY AND IN WRITING. THAT IS, THEY NOTIFIED HER THAT THE CONDUCT WAS UNACCEPTABLE AND VIOLATIVE OF BOARD POLICIES AND THE EMPLOYEE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, AND THEY NOTIFIED HER OF POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES SHOULD SHE CONTINUE EXHIBITING SUCH BEHAVIOR. BUT THE BEHAVIOR CONTINUED. AT THE END OF THE 23, 24 SCHOOL YEAR, THE DISTRICT PLACED MISS MOSES IN THE EXCESS POOL. SHE ORIGINALLY WORKED AT LYONS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT THE BEGINNING OF THE LAST SCHOOL YEAR, 2024, 2025, BEFORE BEING REASSIGNED ON SEPTEMBER 27 TO BARRICK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO FILL A VACANCY THAT WAS CAUSED WHEN ONE OF THEIR TEACHERS HAD TO TAKE MEDICAL LEAVE. AGAIN, SHE ONLY WORKED AT BARRICK FOR SIX OR SEVEN TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS BEFORE LEADERSHIP REASSIGNED HER AWAY. THAT RESULTED PRIMARILY BASED ON HER CONDUCT ON OCTOBER 8TH AND OCTOBER 9TH, 2024. QUICKLY WALK YOU THROUGH THIS. ON OCTOBER 8TH, PRINCIPAL ESPINOZA, I HAVE HER IN ATTENDANCE. SHE WAS WALKING HER CAMPUS WHEN A COMMOTION FROM BEHIND MISS MOSES CLOSED CLASSROOM DOOR FORCED HER TO INTERVENE. SHE WITNESS MISS MOSES SEEMINGLY DISCIPLINING A YOUNG PRE-K STUDENT. THE HEARING EXAMINER NOTED THAT MIXED TESTIMONY OCCURRED UNDERMINING THE ADMINISTRATION'S NARRATIVE. OUR NARRATIVE IS THAT MISS ESPINOZA FOUND MISS MOSES SCREAMING AT A LITTLE BOY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CLASS IN FRONT OF EVERYONE WHICH MISS MOSES EXPLAINED OCCURRED BECAUSE THE BOY HAD HIS HANDS IN HIS PANTS, AND HE DID NOT RESPOND TO HER INITIAL CALM EFFORTS TO REDIRECT HIM. MISS ESPINOZA FOUND THAT VERY CONCERNING. WHAT WAS THE MIXED TESTIMONY? WELL, SOME OF OUR WITNESSES CLAIMED THAT MISS MOSES WAS SCREAMING. SOME TESTIFIED THAT SHE WAS YELLING. OTHERS TESTIFIED THAT SHE WAS SPEAKING IN AN ELEVATED TONE. THAT WAS THE MIXED NARRATIVE THAT CAUSED SOME CONFUSION WITH OUR HEARING EXAMINER. THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT ASKING THAT YOU CHANGE ANY OF THOSE FINDINGS OF FACT AGAIN AND REGARDING THIS INCIDENT, WE DON'T HAVE TO. DURING THIS INCIDENT, MISS ESPINOZA DIRECTED MISS MOSES TO NEVER YELL AT STUDENTS, ESPECIALLY FOUR-YEAR-OLD SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS. MISS MOSES TESTIFIED THAT SHE ADMITTED TO BARRICK ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS PRINCIPAL APPRENTICE, THAT WAS DR. SIMMONS, THAT SHE YELLED AT A STUDENT AFTER RECEIVING MISS ESPINOZA'S INSTRUCTION TO THE CONTRARY. [01:40:02] SIMPLY PUT, MISS MOSES ADMITTED SHE VIOLATED MISS ESPINOZA'S DIRECTIVE. THAT IS ONE UNDISPUTED ADMISSION THAT IS ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH THAT NON-RENEWAL IS APPROPRIATE. OCTOBER 9TH, 2024, PRINCIPAL ESPINOZA AGAIN DISCOVERED MISS MOSES WALKING TOWARD THE COPY ROOM ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE CAMPUS FROM HER CLASSROOM AT AROUND 7:30 AM WHEN SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IN HER CLASSROOM WITH HER STUDENTS WHILE THEY ATE. MISS ESPINOZA APPROACHED MISS MOSES. SHE EXPLAINED HER EXPECTATIONS THAT THE TEACHER OF RECORD BE IN THE CLASSROOM MONITORING HER STUDENTS, AND SHE DIRECTED HER TO RETURN TO HER ROOM IMMEDIATELY. MISS MOSES DID NOT COMPLY. SHE ARGUED THAT SHE NEEDED COPIES, AND SHE CONTINUED TOWARD THE COPY ROOM, WHICH FORCED MISS ESPINOZA TO FOLLOW HER AND REPEAT HER DIRECTIVES TWO OR THREE MORE TIMES. WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT MISS MOSES ULTIMATELY RETURNED TO HER CLASSROOM, IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT MISS MOSES INITIALLY DEMONSTRATED NON-COMPLIANCE, AND INSUBORDINATION, WHEN SHE ARGUED WITH HER PRINCIPAL, REFUSED TO RETURN TO HER CLASSROOM AS DIRECTED AND CONTINUED HEADING TOWARD THE COPY ROOM, FORCING MISS ESPINOZA TO FOLLOW HER ACROSS THE CAMPUS. ON OCTOBER 9 THAT SAME DAY, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL REESE ENTERED MRS. MOSES CLASSROOM DURING ANCILLARY TIME. THAT WAS WHEN MRS. MOSES WAS SCHEDULED TO BE ON HER DUTY FREE PLANNING SLASH CONFERENCE PERIOD TO PULL A STUDENT FOR TESTING. MRS. REESE SIMILARLY WITNESSED MRS. MOSES BEHAVING INAPPROPRIATELY TOWARD A YOUNG FEMALE STUDENT WITH DOWN SYNDROME. AND AGAIN, I'M NOT ASKING THAT YOU CHANGE ANY OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THAT INCIDENT. AND AGAIN, REGARDING THAT INCIDENT, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE TO. MRS. MOSES ADMITTED THAT SHE ENGAGED IN A TUG OF WAR WITH THE STUDENT AFTER MRS. REESE INTERVENED AND ASKED HER TO RELEASE THE CHILD AND STEP AWAY. AND AS A RESULT OF THE CONDUCT TOWARD THAT STUDENT, MRS. REESE DIRECTED MRS. MOSES TO STEP OUTSIDE INTO THE HALLWAY SO THEY COULD SPEAK PRIVATELY OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF OTHER STUDENTS. MRS. MOSES REFUSED REPEATEDLY, LITERALLY TELLING MRS. REESE NO OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND SHE NEVER COMPLIED. MRS. MOSES FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT SHE DID NOT COMPLY BECAUSE SHE WAS FRUSTRATED AND BECAUSE THEY WERE PAST THE POINT OF TALKING. UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE EXISTS, DEMONSTRATING AGAIN THAT MRS. MOSES VIOLATED ANOTHER DIRECTIVE FROM CAMPUS LEADERSHIP BECAUSE SHE ADMITTED THAT ON DIRECT EXAMINATION. IF PERMITTED, I COULD CONTINUE IDENTIFYING EXAMP AFTER EXAMPLE WHERE MRS. MOSES EXHIBITED INSUBORDINATION AND VIOLATED DIRECTIVES. NOTABLY, CAMPUS LEADERSHIP, NAMELY PRINCIPAL ESPINOSA, PRINCIPAL APPRENTICE, DOCTOR SIMMONS AND A SORRY, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL MRS. REESE, ALL TESTIFIED REGARDING VARIOUS INCIDENTS AS DID ANOTHER TEACHER, PATRICIA JERNIGAN. AND THEY ALL TESTIFIED THAT MRS. MOSES CONDUCT VIOLATED VARIOUS SPECIFIC PROVISIONS WITHIN YOUR BOARD POLICIES, DH LOCAL AND DH EXHIBIT. I HAVE SUBMITTED THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL TO CHANGE CERTAIN CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WITHIN THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION. AS YOU KNOW, THIS BOARD MUST SIMPLY FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATION ESTABLISHED JUST ONE. THAT'S ONLY ONE REASON FROM BOARD POLICY DFBP LOCAL EXISTS SUPPORTING NON RENEWAL. HERE, THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT MRS. MOSES EXHIBITED INSUBORDINATION, VIOLATED DIRECTIVES, AND VIOLATED BOARD POLICIES. THE HEARING EXAMINER ACTUALLY FOUND THAT MRS. MOSES VIOLATED DIRECTIVES. THAT'S HER FINDINGS OF FACTS NUMBERS 27 AND 28. YET SHE SIMULTANEOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN, NO EVIDENCE EXISTS DEMONSTRATING THAT SHE VIOLATED DIRECTIVES. SHE ALSO CONFUSINGLY FOUND THAT THE ADMINISTRATION PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE REGARDING ANY SPECIFIC BOARD POLICY VIOLATIONS, BUT THAT'S ALSO NUN TRUE. THE ADMINISTRATION SUBMITTED BOARD POLICIES, DH LOCAL AND EXHIBIT AS EXHIBITS. TO ARE EXHIBITS 27 AND 28, AND THE ADMINISTRATION'S WITNESSES AGAIN, TESTIFIED ABOUT MRS. MOSES VIOLATIONS OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS WITHIN THOSE BOARD POLICIES. FOR NON RENEWAL IS PROPER TONIGHT BECAUSE BASED ON THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, SHE EXHIBITED REPEAT INSUBORDINATION AND FAILED TO COMPLY WITH OFFICIAL DIRECTIVES, AND SHE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH YOUR BOARD POLICIES. AGAIN, YOU ONLY HAVE TO HAVE ONE REASON. WE HAVE THAT WITH THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, SO WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU CHANGE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION IS SPECIFIED IN OUR PROPOSAL AND NON RENEW HER CONTRACT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. MR. FALLON, YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION. >> READY? GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THIS CASE IS DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER CASES THAT YOU'VE HEARD. IT IS NOT A PERFORMANCE CASE, IT IS A MISCONDUCT CASE. AND THE REASON THAT'S DIFFERENT AND SIGNIFICANT, FOR WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY TO YOU IS BECAUSE YOUR ABILITY TO INTERPRET THE LAW. THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN A CASE ABOUT MISCONDUCT. LET'S JUST SAY A TEACHER IS ACCUSED OF HITTING A KID. THAT'S NOT THIS CASE. BUT LET'S JUST SAY BECAUSE THAT'S AN EASY TYPE OF MISCONDUCT. THE CASE GOES TO TRIAL. JUDGE LISTENS TO ONE SIDE TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED. LISTEN TO THE OTHER SIDE TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AND THEN MAKES A DETERMINATION THAT THE TEACHER DID NOT ENGAGE IN ANY MISCONDUCT, DIDN'T HIT THE KID. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, OF COURSE, [01:45:01] THE BOARD CAN'T OVERTURN THAT. NOW, I THINK IN FACT, I HAVE NO DOUBT. I DON'T HAVE TO THINK IT. I'M VERY CONFIDENT THAT YOUR LAWYERS WOULD ARGUE THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU DO, AND PERHAPS ONE DAY AN APPELLATE COURT WILL MAKE THAT DECISION. BUT BASED ON WHAT, WHAT LAW WOULD YOU USE? HOW WOULD YOU CHANGE THE LAW, SUCH THAT YOU COULD TAKE FINDINGS OF FACT WHERE THE HEARING OFFICER HEARD TWO SIDES PICKED ONE SIDE, AFTER CROSS EXAMINATION, AFTER DIRECT EXAMINATION, AFTER WITNESS PRESENTATION, AFTER THOUGHTFUL DELIBERATION. HOW CAN YOU OVERTURN WITH LAW, WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND IN FACT, THAT IS WHAT IS BEFORE YOU WITH A CASE OF MISCONDUCT. MRS. MOSES, WHO WAS ONLY ON THE CAVAS FOR I BELIEVE SHE WAS ASSIGNED ON 27 OF SEPTEMBER AND WAS REMOVED ON 9 OCTOBER, I THINK IT WAS NINE WORK DAYS TOTAL INTO A CLASSROOM FOR WHICH SHE WAS NOT CERTIFIED, I WOULD ADD, IT WAS A PRE K EARLY CHILDHOOD CLASS, AND THAT IS NOT AN AREA THAT REQUIRES A SPECIAL CERTIFICATION WHEN THAT SHE DIDN'T HAVE. DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, AS SHE'S ADAPTING TO THIS CLASS, WHICH SHE HADN'T TAUGHT ELEMENTARY SINCE THE BEGINNING OF VERY BEGINNING OF HER CAREER. THESE INCIDENTS OCCURRED. THIS IS OUR SETTING. DESPITE WHAT IS BEING ARGUED BY OPPOSING COUNSEL, ALL THE FACTS IN THIS CASE WERE CONTESTED. THERE ARE NO FACTS THAT WEREN'T CONTESTED, AND THAT MAYBE WILL BE VETTED LATER ON ON APPEAL WHENEVER LAWYERS GO THROUGH AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE RECORD SAYS. I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT I RECALL OF THE RECORD FROM MEMORY, BUT I REMEMBER IT WELL. EACH FACT WAS CONTESTED. MRS. MOSES TESTIFIED AGAINST THE WITNESS PRESENTATIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED AGAINST HER. BUT WHAT WAS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT THING ABOUT THIS CASE WAS HISDS WITNESSES TESTIFIED AGAINST THEMSELVES, AND I'LL GO THROUGH THAT IN A MINUTE. IT IS NOT SO EASY TO OVERTURN OR TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN A CASE WHERE THE FACTS WERE DIVERGENT WHEN THERE'S EVIDENCE ON EACH FACT GOING IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS, IS NOT AGREE. GOOD LUCK IN OVERTURNING A CONCLUSION OF LAW WHEN THERE IS CONTESTED FACTS. THE JUDGE LOOKED AT ALL OF THESE THINGS, AND REALLY THERE'S THREE INCIDENTS THAT THE JUDGE LOOKED AT? ONE ON THE EIGHTH, TWO ON THE NINTH, AND THE JUDGE LISTENED TO THE WITNESSES, TELL DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE EVENTS AND FELT THAT THE DISTRICT'S WITNESSES DID NOT TESTIFY CREDIBLY, THAT THEY LACKED THE ABILITY. THE DISTRICT JUST FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF, WHICH IS A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. WE'LL GO THROUGH A COUPLE OF THEM, BUT THERE'S ONE BIG ONE AT THE END. ON THE EIGHTH, THE TESTIMONY FROM THE PRINCIPAL IS SHE HEARD NOISE OUTSIDE MRS. MOSES'S CLASSROOM. SHE GOES IN AND SEES THAT MRS. MOSES IS DIRECTING HER ATTENTION OR I GUESS, IN HER WORDS, YELLING AT THE STUDENT. A CONTESTED FACT IN THE CASE. THE TESTIMONY IN THAT CASE WAS FROM MRS. MOSES, AND IT WAS AGREED UPON, BY THE WAY, BY THE PRINCIPAL THAT THIS YOUNG MAN HAD BEEN STICKING HIS HANDS IN HIS PANTS AND FONDELING HIMSELF. THIS IS WHAT WAS GOING ON. THIS WAS A THREE, 4-YEAR-OLD YOU KNOW, EARLY CHILDHOOD. AND THAT'S A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE FOR THAT CHILD AND FOR OTHER CHILDREN IN THE CLASSROOM. THE TESTIMONY WENT THAT MRS. MOSES HAD BEEN STRUGGLING WITH THIS STUDENT ON THIS ISSUE ALL MORNING LONG AND HAD BEEN DIRECTING HIM WITH VERBAL INSTRUCTION TO STOP THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, HE DID IT ONCE. SHE ASKED HIM TO STOP DOING IT AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. IT HAD ESCALATED TO THE POINT WHERE SHE BEGAN TO BE CONCERNED THAT THESE STUDENTS AROUND HIM WERE IN A SITUATION THAT WAS UNSAFE FOR THEM. JUST AS I CAN IMAGINE, ANYBODY HERE WOULD FEEL IF THEIR CHILDREN WERE IN THE CLASS NEXT TO THE YOUNG BOY WHO HAD HIS HANDS IN HIS PANTS AND WAS FONDLING HIMSELF. THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT THAT THE PRINCIPAL HAD WHEN SHE SAYS, SHE WAS YELLING AT A CLASSROOM. SHE WAS TRYING TO VERBALLY REDIRECT THE CHILD. THE MANNER OR DESCRIPTION OF THAT VERBAL REDIRECTION WAS CONTESTED. THE JUDGE CITED FOR MRS. MOSES IN THAT SITUATION. BY THE WAY, THAT WAS NOT AN INCIDENT THAT WAS EVER WRITTEN UP. IN OTHER WORDS, THAT HAPPENED ON THE EIGHTH. IT'S NOT LIKE THE PRINCIPAL WALKED IN THERE, SAW WHAT HAPPENED, WENT BACK, AND WROTE HER UP AN E MAIL OR ANY OTHER MEMORANDUM. THE REASON THAT'S SIGNIFICANT IS BECAUSE CLEARLY, AND YOU'LL SEE IT TIME AND TIME AGAIN WHEN YOU COME INTO ONE OF THESE HEARINGS, YOU'LL SEE THAT THEY GO DREDGE UP ANYTHING THAT THEY COULD. YOU HAVE TO WEIGH WHETHER THAT'S CREDIBLE OR NOT. IF IT WAS THAT BIG OF A DEAL, SHE WOULD HAVE WRITTEN IT UP THAT DAY, I ASSURE YOU, SHE DID NOT. THE NEXT DAY ON THE NINTH, THERE WERE TWO INCIDENTS, ONE IN THE MORNING, WHERE MRS. MOSES WAS GOING TO GET COPIES. [01:50:03] THE ALLEGATION WAS THAT SHE LEFT, AND THIS IS WHAT STATED IN THE NOTICE LETTER, LEFT HER STUDENTS UNATTENDED. UNCONTESTED IS THE FACT THAT SHE LEFT THE AID IN THERE. BY THE WAY, AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE DAY, IT'S UNCONTESTED THAT THAT'S A PERIOD OF TIME, RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY WHEN SHE WAS GOING TO GET COPIES WHERE THEY EAT BREAKFAST, ACCORDING TO THEIR SCHEDULE, UNCONTESTED, UNCONTESTED THAT THE KIDS ARE SUPERVISED BY AN AD THAT HAD FIVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN THAT CLASSROOM. SHE'S GOING DOWN TO GET COPIES. KEEP IN MIND, SHE WAS PUT INTO THE CLASSROOM LATER IN THE YEAR, SO SHE MRS.ED ORIENTATION. IF THEY'VE GOT RULES ABOUT IT ON THE CAMPUS, SHE DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT THEM, AND NO ONE CITED ANY WRITTEN RULES THAT SHE WAS VIOLATING BY DOING WHAT SHE DID. THE INTERACTION IS DESCRIBED ONE WAY BY MRS. MOSES. IT'S DESCRIBED ANOTHER WAY BY THE PRINCIPAL. THE HEARING OFFICER SIMPLY SAID MRS. MOSES' VERSION WAS MORE CREDIBLE. THE THIRD THING AND THE MORE SIGNIFICANT ONE WAS WHEN MRS. MOSES DURING THE ANCILLARY TIME, THAT'S WHEN A TEACHER IS NOT IN THE CLASSROOM, WAS TRYING TO GO IN AND HELP THE ANCILLARY TEACHER OPERATE THE STATIONS THAT SHE SET UP IN HER CLASSROOM. SHE'D BEEN HAVING TROUBLE WITH THE STUDENTS AND WAS TRYING TO GET CONSISTENCY WITH THE DISCIPLINE, AND THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CLASSROOM IS PARAMOUNT TO BEING ABLE TO DO SO. AND SO WHAT SHE DOES IS SETS UP THESE STATIONS, AND THEN WHEN THE ANCILLARY TEACHER CAME IN WAS IN THERE TRYING TO HELP THE ANCILLARY TEACHER OPERATE THE SYSTEM SO THAT THERE WAS CONSISTENCY BETWEEN HER REGULAR CLASSROOM AND THE ANCILLARY CLASSROOM. IN THAT, THERE WAS THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL CAME IN, AND THERE WAS SOME VERBAL BACK AND FORTH OVER WHAT HAPPENED. THERE WAS A NON VERBAL STUDENT WHO ACCORDING TO MRS. JERNIGAN, NOT AN ADMINISTRATOR, NOT ANY PARTICULAR ALLIANCE WITH MRS. MOSES, SHE'D ONLY BEEN ON THE CAMPUS A HANDFUL OF DAYS. MRS. JERNIGAN WAS IN THERE AND TESTIFIED THAT THIS IS A STUDENT, IT WAS A NON VERBAL. SHE CRIES WHEN SHE'S UPSET OR AGITATED. THE STUDENT WASN'T DOING WHAT SHE WAS BEING TOLD. MRS. MOSES TESTIFIED THAT SHE BROUGHT THE STUDENT CLOSE TO HER, WAS GIVING DIRECTIONS AROUND WHENEVER THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL CAME IN. THERE THERE CAME A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL AND MRS. MOSES ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE CLASSROOM. THE MOST CRITICAL THING ABOUT THAT CONFLICT WAS WHEN MRS. JERNIGAN TESTIFIED ABOUT IT, SHE SAID THAT MRS. MOSES SPOKE IN A VOICE TONE THAT WAS SLIGHTLY ABOVE MRS. REESE, THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL, WHO SPEAKS IN SOFT TONE. WHY IS THAT SIGNIFICANT? BECAUSE RIGHT AFTERWARDS, MRS. REESE CAME IN AND TESTIFIED THAT MRS. MOSES WAS SCREAMING AND YELLING. SPITTLE WAS COMING OUT OF HER MOUTH, MRS. REESE, THESOR PRINCIPAL, WASN'T PRESENT TO WATCH MRS. JERNIGAN'S TESTIMONY, SO SHE COULDN'T ALIGN HERSELF BECAUSE OF LAWYERS INVOKING THE RULE. THE HEARING OFFICER TOOK NOTE. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS CASE IS ULTIMATELY ABOUT. YOU KNOW, I WAS, BY THE WAY, A PERIOD OF TIME WHEN THE ANCILLARY CLASSES WHERE SHE'S NOT SUP DIDN'T HAVE TO BE IN THE CLASSROOM. SHE CAN BE. THERE'S NO RULE SAYING SHE CAN'T BE IN THE ROOM. BUT THEY MAKE A BIG DEAL ABOUT HER LEAVING THE CLASSROOM. BUT THE HEARING OFFICER NOTES SHE DIDN'T HAVE DUTY AT THE TIME. THAT'S HER PLANNING PERIOD OF TIME. SHE LEAVES THE CLASSROOM. SHE GOES OUTSIDE THERE HAPPENED TO BE A CAMPUS, I GUESS, A CENTRAL OFFICE LEADERSHIP TEAM ON CAMPUS. ONE OF THE PEOPLE IN THAT TEAM ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY WAS THE ONE THAT ASSIGNED HER TO THAT CAMPUS, AND SHE WENT AND HAD TO TALK WITH THAT PERSON ABOUT WHAT HAD JUST HAPPENED TO HER. IT IS UNCONTESTED AND ADMITTED BY THE PRINCIPAL WHEN SHE GAVE MRS. MOSES DIRECTIVES, MRS. MOSES FOLLOWED THOSE DIRECTIVES. I GOT HER TO ADMIT IT BECAUSE IT WAS THE TRUTH. THAT'S AN UNCONTESTED FACT. SHE MERELY DIDN'T LIKE THE WAY THAT SHE FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIVE. I DO NOT THINK THERE'S ANY CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT IN THIS CASE. I MEAN, I THINK THAT THERE'S NO FACT THAT DOESN'T HAVE TWO PERSPECTIVES. THAT IS GOING TO MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT ON APPEAL FOR THE DISTRICT TO BE SUCCESSFUL. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THOSE THINGS. AND ASK YOU ALSO CONSIDER THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A PATTERN OF OVERTURNING EVERY CASE THAT COMES BEFORE YOU, THAT WILL APPEAR IN MY APPEALS. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. YOU MAY BEGIN YOUR REBUTTAL. WHAT'S THAT? EVERY TIME. WELL, NO. ANY QUESTIONS? THE BOARD NOW RECESS TO CLOSED SESION CHAPTER 551 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. OPEN MEETINGS. I'M SORRY. YOU HAVE A QUESTION? LET'S GO TALK ABOUT IT. THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 555 TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, OPEN MEANINGS ACT, SECTION 55104, THROUGH 551089. [01:55:01] SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION OR VOTE OR DECISION ON ANY MATTER CONSIDERING THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED, SUCH FINAL ACTION, VOTE OR DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN AT AN OPEN MEETING GOVERNED BY THIS NOTICE UPON THE RECONVENING OF THIS PUBLIC MEETING OR AT A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD UPON NOTICE THEREOF. THE BOARD HAS RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION AT 7:43 P.M. NOVEMBER 20TH, 2025. THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION AT THE TIME IS 8:06 P.M. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? >> YES, MR. PRESIDENT. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GRANT THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN PETITIONER'S PLEADING, TITLED DECISION OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS PROPOSED BY ADMINISTRATION FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN, THAT THE BOARD MODIFY THE INTRODUCTION PARAGRAPH ON PAGE ONE AS REQUESTED, THAT THE BOARD MODIFY THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE DISCUSSION SECTION AS REQUESTED, THAT THE BOARD MODIFY THE SECOND, FOURTH, NINTH, AND 12TH PARAGRAPHS AS REQUESTED. THE BOARD MODIFY THE SIXTH AND EIGHTH CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND REJECT THE SEVENTH CONCLUSION OF LAW AS REQUESTED. THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINDINGS OF FACT AS MODIFIED BY THIS MOTION, AND THAT CONSISTENT WITH THIS MOTION, THAT THE BOARD TERMINATE THE EMPLOYMENT OF DON MOSES AND NON RENEW HER CONTRACT AFFECTED IMMEDIATELY. ZERO SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON FURS SAY AYE? NOS. LETTER NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD RELATIONS WITHIN TEN DAYS. THIS LETTER SHALL INCLUDE THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW OF THE SCHOOL BOARD AND ANY GRANT OF RELIEF OBTAINED. FURTHERMORE, THE LETTER SHALL STATE THE REASONS AND LEGAL BASIS FOR THE REJECTING OF OR CHANGING OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT OR CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PROPOSED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER. THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 8:07 P.M. >> ARE THE PARTIES READY TO PROCEED? GOOD. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE PARENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION HEARING FILED BY JEREMY LAWRENCE, A PARENT OF MEYERLAND PERFORMING AND VISUAL ARTS MIDDLE SCHOOL. STUDENT HEARINGS ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS BOTH PARTIES TO THE HEARING REQUEST THAT IT BE CONDUCTED IN OPEN SESSION. IN ADDITION, HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION, UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE HEARING REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION. IN THIS HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEYS UNDER THE TERMS OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071. IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISH TO SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. FOR THE RECORD, JEREMY LAWRENCE IS PRESENT. ANNIE STEIN, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IS ALSO PRESENT AND CATOSHA WOODS, HISD GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT. MR. LAWRENCE, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE AN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? WE WILL BE OPEN. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER THE BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES WERE CORRECTLY APPLIED TO THE AGREEMENT, AND WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS VIOLATED THOSE POLICIES OR PROCEDURES. MR. LAWRENCE, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST. YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION BY ANNIE STEIN. PRESENTATIONS MUST BE BASED ON THE LEVEL 2 HEARING TRANSCRIPT. MR. LAWRENCE, YOU MAY RESERVE 10 MINUTES OF YOUR TIME FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MS. STEIN. BOTH SIDES WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. YOU WANT TO SPLIT YOUR TIME? PERFECT. YOU CAN MANAGE YOUR OWN TIME, THEN YOU MAY BEGIN. THANK YOU. [02:00:04] >> THANK YOU. I'M JEREMY LAWRENCE. THIS IS MY WIFE, JULIA. I LIKE THE TREND WE'VE GOT GOING HERE WITH THE BOARD, REJECTING THE LEVEL 2 EXAMINER'S DECISION AND TERMINATING THE TEACHER, I HOPE WE CAN KEEP THAT GOING. IF YOU HAVE READ THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE LEVEL 2 HEARING, YOU KNOW THAT THIS ISN'T ABOUT A GRADE. YOU KNOW THAT I AM ANGRY BECAUSE VANESSA CURRY IS A BULLY WHO BULLIED MY DAUGHTER, AND YOU WON'T INVESTIGATE IT. IF YOU HAD TAKEN THIS SERIOUSLY, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO TELL YOU HOW MANY OTHER PARENTS HAVE FILED GRIEVANCES AGAINST THIS TEACHER? MR. MITCHELL WOULD BE ABLE TO TELL YOU HOW MANY PARENTS HAVE COMPLAINED TO THE PRINCIPAL OR DEAN OF STUDENTS AT THAT SCHOOL ABOUT THIS TEACHER. AT THE LEVEL 2 HEARING, THEY DIDN'T CARE. THEY DIDN'T CARE BECAUSE MY DAUGHTER GOT A GOOD GRADE IN THE CLASS. THAT'S WHAT THAT WAS ABOUT FOR THEM. YEAR AGO, MY WIFE AND I SAT IN HIS OFFICE BECAUSE MY DAUGHTER HAD MISSED A GYM CLASS BECAUSE SHE HAD A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT. AFTER SHE MISSED THE GYM CLASS, MY WIFE E-MAILED THE TEACHER AND SAID, SHE MISSED THE CLASS. SHE NEEDS TO MAKE UP THIS TEST. VANESSA CURRY IGNORED THE E-MAIL, NEVER RESPONDED. WE HAD MEETINGS SET UP WITH THE TEACHERS ALREADY TO DEAL WITH SOME OTHER ISSUES, AND WE RAISED IT AT THAT TIME. THE DEAN OF STUDENTS WAS THERE. MY GUESS, I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I WASN'T THERE. MY GUESS IS DEAN OF STUDENTS THEN WENT TO VANESSA CURRY AND TOLD HER, MAKE UP THIS TEST. VANESSA CURRY THEN CALLED MY WIFE AND WAS VERBALLY ABUSIVE TO HER ON THAT PHONE CALL. SHE THEN WENT TO MY DAUGHTER AND WAS VERBALLY ABUSIVE TO MY DAUGHTER. BUT SHE DID SCHEDULE THE TEST. BUT WHEN MY DAUGHTER WENT TO MAKE UP THE TEST, VANESSA CURRY DIDN'T SHOW UP. SKIPPED IT. MY DAUGHTER ASKED HER, WHEN CAN WE RESCHEDULE THIS? VANESSA CURRY TOLD HER, YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE, YOU BLEW IT. THEN WE TALKED TO MR. MITCHELL, AND HE SAID, I'LL TAKE CARE OF IT. WHEN WE SAT IN HIS OFFICE, MY WIFE AND I TOLD HIM. SHE DID THIS ONCE, SHE'S GOING TO DO IT AGAIN, AND SHE'S GOING TO RETALIATE AGAINST MY DAUGHTER. HE LOOKED US IN THE EYE AND SAID, THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN. IT IMMEDIATELY HAPPENED AGAIN. MY DAUGHTER MISSED THE CLASS BECAUSE SHE WAS ON THE FIELD TRIP, AND WE TOLD HER, GET WITH THE TEACHER, GET IT RESCHEDULED. RIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS, A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON. SHE SAID, VANESSA CURRY TOLD ME, WE JUST GOT TO PICK A DATE. WE GOT TO FIND A TIME THAT WORKS AND GET IT TOGETHER. WE GO INTO JANUARY, WE'RE ASKING HER TO GET THE SCHEDULE. SHE KEEPS TELLING ME WE GOT TO FIND A DATE, NEVER GETS IT SET. MY WIFE E-MAILS AND HER SAID, I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS IS HAPPENING AGAIN. VANESSA CURRY'S RESPONSE, WE NEED TO MEET WITH THE DEAN OF STUDENTS. ABSOLUTELY, WE DO NEED TO MEET WITH THE DEAN OF STUDENTS. WE MET WITH THE DEAN OF STUDENTS. THERE WERE FOUR PEOPLE IN THAT ROOM. VANESSA CURRY, MY WIFE, MYSELF, AND DEAN CLAN JOHNSON, FOUR OF US. TWO OF US ARE HERE IN THIS ROOM TODAY. AT THAT MEETING, IT WAS TO SAY WILD IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT. VANESSA CURRY HAD FALSIFIED MY DAUGHTER'S GRADE IN THAT CLASS. THEN SHE PUT LIES ON POWER SCHOOL ABOUT MY DAUGHTER'S CONDUCT IN THAT CLASS TO JUSTIFY THE GRADE. NOW, I WOULD SHOW YOU THE LIE, BUT SHE DELETED POWER SCHOOL AS SOON AS SHE WALKED OUT OF THAT OFFICE. SHE LEFT THAT OFFICE, WENT BACK TO HER OFFICE AND DELETED POWER SCHOOL. HERE'S WHY. BECAUSE AFTER THAT HAD HAPPENED, WE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF TRYING TO SCHEDULE THIS MAKEUP TEST. I SAID, LOOK, MY DAUGHTER'S IN A 504 PROGRAM, AND HERE'S WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. ARE YOU DOING THAT? SHE SAID, YES. I SAID, PROVE IT. SHOW ME HOW YOU'RE DOING IT. SHE GOT ANGRY. I KEPT PUSHING HER. I SAID, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU EXPLAIN THIS PROCESS TO HER? THAT'S ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS. SHE SAID, I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU. I KEPT PRESSING HER. FINALLY, SHE LOOKED AT DEAN JOHNSON AND SHE SAID, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. SHE'S OUT OF MY CLASS. THEN SHE ASKED DEAN JOHNSON IF SHE COULD LEAVE. I SAID, HOLD ON A SECOND. WE HAVE A 504 MEETING NEXT WEEK. YOU NEED TO BE THERE AND EXPLAIN TO THE TEAM WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN YOUR CLASS. SHE SAID, ABSOLUTELY NOT. SHE'S NOT MY STUDENT. THEN SHE LEFT. I FILED THIS GRIEVANCE. NOW, I NEED TO POINT OUT A DISCREPANCY IN THIS GRIEVANCE. YOU'VE GOT IT NOTED AS A MARCH 2025 GRIEVANCE. THAT'S NOT WHEN I FILED IT. [02:05:01] I FILED THIS ON JANUARY 28 AT 12:00 P.M. EXACTLY, AND I'VE GOT A PHOTO TIMESTAMPED ON MY PHONE THAT I CAN SHOW YOU OF ME DROPPING IT OFF AT THE FRONT DESK AT MEYERLAND MIDDLE SCHOOL. I WANT TO KNOW WHY THAT SEVEN WEEK GAP IS THERE BECAUSE WHEN I DROPPED IT OFF, HE DID NOTHING. HE HID IT FROM YOU. I FILED A GRIEVANCE ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I THOUGHT, THERE'S NO WAY THIS CAN BE ALLOWED. YOU'RE ALLOWING IT. YOU JUST DISMISSED THAT GRIEVANCE. I WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A LEVEL 2 HEARING ON THAT TWO DAYS AGO. YOU JUST DISMISSED IT. YOU SAID, IT'S THE SAME THING AS THIS. ABSOLUTELY NOT. YOU MADE IT CLEAR AT THE BEGINNING THAT YOU WEREN'T GOING TO INVESTIGATE THIS. I TRIED. I SENT A DOCUMENT REQUEST TO HISD. I ASKED FOR COPIES OF ALL THE COMPLAINTS AND GRIEVANCES AGAINST THIS TEACHER IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. I STILL DON'T HAVE THEM. IT'S BEEN SEVEN MONTHS. I DON'T HAVE THEM BECAUSE YOU SAY YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT COMPLAINT OR GRIEVANCE MEANS. THAT'S THE EXCUSE. YOU NEED ME TO CLARIFY WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN. EVEN THOUGH WE ARE HERE IN A COMPLAINT/GRIEVANCE PROCESS BECAUSE I FILED A DOCUMENT THAT SAYS ON THE TOP OF IT, COMPLAINT/GRIEVANCE. I'VE GOT THE AG INVOLVED IN THAT AND WHATEVER COMES OF THAT, IF I GET THOSE DOCUMENTS, AND IT DOES SHOW THAT SHE HAS HAD MANY GRIEVANCES FILED AGAINST HER, I'M COMING BACK. I MEAN, I WILL COME BACK. THERE'S THE BULLYING ISSUE. BUT THE OTHER ISSUE ON THIS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMPLAINT, IS THAT I SAID SHE WAS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST MY DAUGHTER BECAUSE OF HER 504 PROGRAM. I HAVE HEARD AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS TRUE THAT VANESSA CURRY WILL BULLY THE KIDS IN HER CLASS THAT SHE DOESN'T LIKE UNTIL THEIR PARENTS BEG THEM TO BE TRANSFERRED OUT OF HER CLASS. I BELIEVE THAT HAPPENS, AND I'VE BEEN TOLD PRETTY MUCH ANYONE WITH AN IEP OR A 504 PROGRAM ENDS UP GETTING MOVED OUT OF HER CLASS. WE DID NOT ASK HER TO DO THAT. ABSOLUTELY NOT. BUT HERE'S THE PROBLEM. THAT'S IN THAT GRIEVANCE THAT I DROPPED OFF AT THE SCHOOL IN JANUARY, YOU HAVE NOT INVESTIGATED THAT DISCRIMINATION CLAIM AT ALL. I GOT A CALL TWO WEEKS AGO FROM THE TITLE 9 COORDINATOR SAYING FOR THE FIRST TIME SAYING, YOU MADE A DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT, WE NEED TO INVESTIGATE. PLEASE SEND ME THAT GRIEVANCE. WE NEVER KNEW ABOUT IT. ONLY REASON THAT HAPPENED WAS BECAUSE WHEN THEY DISMISSED THE SECOND GRIEVANCE AGAINST HIM, I SENT AN E-MAIL SAYING, THIS IS NOT THE SAME ISSUE. THIS FIRST GRIEVANCE WAS ABOUT BULLYING AND DISCRIMINATION. THE SECOND ONE IS ABOUT WHAT WHAT THE PRINCIPAL DID IN HANDLING THIS. THAT IS THE ONLY REASON TITLE 9 HAS GOTTEN INVOLVED. I THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM. IF I WAS HISD'S ATTORNEY, I WOULD PROBABLY PULL MY CLIENT ASIDE RIGHT ABOUT NOW AND SUGGEST TO THEM, WE MIGHT NEED TO CALL OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND HAVE THEM DO AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION, INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGATIONS I'VE MADE IN THIS COMPLAINT, THE HANDLING OF THIS COMPLAINT, AND THE DISCRIMINATION AND HOW IN THE WORLD THAT SAT THERE FOR 10 MONTHS WITHOUT BEING HANDLED, WITHOUT BEING INVESTIGATED. BUT I'M NOT YOUR ATTORNEY, OBVIOUSLY. I WILL TELL YOU THIS THOUGH. I'M HERE, AND THIS IS WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO ASK YOU, WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO. I'M HERE BECAUSE I JUST WANT YOU TO MAKE A DECISION, BECAUSE I'M APPEALING THIS TO THE TEA, BECAUSE I AM APPEALING THAT DISMISSAL, THIS DECISION, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, AND THE RECORDS ISSUE, AND I'M BUNDLING IT TOGETHER AND APPEALING TO THE TEA. THEN ONCE I'M DONE WITH THAT, I WILL HAVE EXHAUSTED MY ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, AND I AM FILING A RULE 202 PETITION AND GETTING SUBPOENA POWER FROM THE COURT HERE IN HARRIS COUNTY TO INVESTIGATE VANESSA CURRY AND WHETHER SHE'S BULLYING STUDENTS OR NOT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. MS. STEIN, YOU CAN GO AHEAD. >> GOOD EVENING, BOARD PRESIDENT, BOARD MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO CONSIDER THE PARENTS GRIEVANCE AND WHETHER THE DECISION AT THE LEVEL 2 WAS APPROPRIATE. MR. LAWRENCE BROUGHT UP MANY THINGS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT LEVEL 2 GRIEVANCE, INCLUDING A TITLE 9 DISCRIMINATION, A PIA REQUEST, AND OTHER ITEMS. BUT AT THIS TIME, WE'RE JUST HERE TO CONSIDER WHAT THE PARENTS ASKED FOR AND WHETHER THE RELIEF THAT WAS GRANTED WAS APPROPRIATE. AT THIS TIME, ALL THE RELIEF THAT THE DISTRICT IS LEGALLY ABLE TO GRANT TO THE PARENT HAS BEEN GRANTED. PARENTS ASKED FOR FOUR THINGS AT THE LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2. [02:10:01] THEY ASKED THAT THE TEACHER AT ISSUE BE TERMINATED OR REASSIGNED. THEY ASKED THAT SHE BE FORMALLY REPRIMANDED. THEY ASKED THAT THERE BE TRAINING AT THE CAMPUS LEVEL ON PARENT COMMUNICATION AND APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION, AND THEY ASKED FOR STAFF TRAINING ON SECTION 504 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. THE DISTRICT HAS GRANTED THE TWO ITEMS RELATED TO THE TRAINING, BUT HAS FOUND NO AUTHORITY IN BOARD POLICY OR STATE LAW TO GRANT THE OTHER TWO ITEMS, THE TERMINATION OR THE FORMAL REPRIMAND. AS YOU HEARD, THE PARENTS ALLEGED THAT A TEACHER AT MEYERLAND MIDDLE SCHOOL MISTREATED THEIR STUDENT BY NOT ALLOWING HER TO MAKE UP TWO TESTS WHEN SHE WAS ABSENT, ACCIDENTALLY MARKING HER ABSENT WHILE SHE WAS ON A FIELD TRIP, GIVING HER A ZERO FOR A DAILY DRESS OUT GRADE ON AT LEAST ONE OR MORE OCCASIONS. THEY ALSO ALLEGED, AS YOU HEARD THAT THE TEACHER REMOVED THE STUDENT FROM HER CLASSROOM AFTER THE PARENTS VOICED CONCERNS ABOUT THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT. THAT'S ALL ON PAGE 8 OF THE TRANSCRIPT. THE LEVEL 2 TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT ALL OF THESE ACTIONS AND ALL OF THESE CONCERNS, WHICH I WILL SAY ARE VALID CONCERNS WERE CORRECTED BY THE CAMPUS ADMINISTRATION. THE STUDENT EARNED AN A PLUS EVERY CYCLE THAT SHE WAS IN THE TEACHER'S CLASS, AND THOUGH IT MIGHT BE DISPUTED, THE PARENT DID AGREE TO THE SCHEDULE CHANGE IN AN IN PERSON CONFERENCE. HOWEVER, NONE OF THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE. ALTHOUGH I DO UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERNS ARE VERY VALID AND VERY REAL, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY THE ISSUE. THE ACTUAL ISSUE IS SIMPLE. THE DISTRICT CANNOT TERMINATE OR REPRIMAND A TEACHER AS RELIEF DURING THE PARENT-TEACHER GRIEVANCE PROCESS UNDER F&G. THERE ARE, AS YOU KNOW, SPECIFIC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR TERMINATION OF A TEACHER'S CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW WITH FIDELITY. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS AND THE RATIONALE FOR ANY EMPLOYMENT DECISION, THEY'RE CONFIDENTIAL. THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE TO THE PARENT OR TO ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISTRICT APPROPRIATELY DENIED THOSE TWO ITEMS OF RELIEF, THE TERMINATION, OR THE REASSIGNMENT OR TO REPRIMAND THE TEACHER. SECTION 21.355 OF THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE STATES THAT A DOCUMENT EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF A TEACHER OR ADMINISTRATOR IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE. OUR BOARD POLICY DNB REITERATES THAT SECTION OF THE EDUCATION CODE. PER LAW, THE DISTRICT CANNOT SHARE ANY EVALUATIVE INFORMATION WITH THE PARENT DURING THE PARENT GRIEVANCE PROCESS. THAT WOULD INCLUDE ORDERING THE HEARING A PRINCIPAL TO TERMINATE OR REASSIGN OR REPRIMAND A TEACHER. REGARDING A FORMAL REPRIMAND, EXHIBIT 2 IN THE PACKET, WHICH IS A REGULATION BOARD POLICY, REGULATION DI STATES THAT NO SUPERVISOR WILL DISCIPLINE OR REPRIMAND AN EMPLOYEE IN A PUBLIC SETTING OR IN A MANNER OTHERWISE INTENDING TO CAUSE AN EMPLOYEE PUBLIC EMBARRASSMENT OR RIDICULE. ACCORDINGLY, A HEARING OFFICER CANNOT REPRIMAND AN EMPLOYEE IN FRONT OF A PARENT DURING A GRIEVANCE. THOSE TWO ITEMS REQUESTED THE TERMINATION OR THE REPRIMAND. WE CANNOT DO THOSE. WE CANNOT GRANT THOSE ITEMS. BUT WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT WAS DONE IN THIS CASE, DESPITE WHAT MR. LAWRENCE KNOWS, WHAT INFORMATION MR. LAWRENCE IS PRIVY TO IS A FULL INVESTIGATION INTO ANY ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT, HARASSMENT BY A TEACHER, FOLLOWED BY APPROPRIATE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS. UNFORTUNATELY, FOR THE PARENT, THAT INFORMATION CANNOT BE SHARED WITH HIM. WE CANNOT TELL HIM WHAT ACTIONS WE TOOK. WE CAN NOT TELL HIM WHAT POTENTIAL MEMOS WERE WRITTEN, CORRECTIVE ACTIONS WERE TAKEN, NONE OF IT. THAT IS ALL CONFIDENTIAL. THE ONLY INFORMATION WE CAN SHARE IN A GRIEVANCE OR IN A CONFERENCE IS THAT AN INVESTIGATION WAS HELD AND THE APPROPRIATE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS WERE MADE. THE CAMPUS MADE THE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS IN THIS CASE, AS I'LL ELABORATE ON, BUT WE DON'T ALLOW RETRIBUTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE AFTER THAT CONDUCT AFTER THE CORRECTIONS HAD BEEN MADE. PRINCIPAL MITCHELL'S TESTIMONY DURING THE LEVEL 2 HEARING DEMONSTRATES THAT HE AND HIS ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL JOHNSON TOOK PARENTS COMPLAINTS SERIOUSLY AND TOOK CORRECTIVE ACTION ON EVERY ISSUE THEY BROUGHT TO HIM. MR. LAWRENCE REQUESTED A MEETING WITH PRINCIPAL MITCHELL ON NOVEMBER 18. MITCHELL RESPONDED THE NEXT DAY TO SCHEDULE THE MEETING, AND THAT'S IN THE E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE IN EXHIBIT 4, I THINK IT'S THE EIGHTH PAGE. THE PARENT ALLEGED THE TEACHER WOULDN'T LET THE STUDENT MAKE UP A PLAINT TEST WHEN SHE WAS ABSENT. ON NOVEMBER 22, JUST FOUR DAYS LATER, MITCHELL UPDATED THE PARENTS STATING HE WOULD SPEAK TO THE TEACHER, AS MR. LAWRENCE INDICATED, AND THE STUDENT WAS EVENTUALLY ABLE TO MAKE UP THE TEST AND HER GRADE WAS CORRECTED EVENTUALLY. PARENTS ALLEGED THE TEACHER ACCIDENTALLY MARKED THE STUDENT ABSENT ON DECEMBER 11 DURING A SCHOOL SPONSORED FIELD TRIP. AFTER THE PARENT REMINDED THE TEACHER, THAT ATTENDANCE WAS EXCUSED. THE STUDENT WAS ALSO ABLE TO MAKE UP A TEST SHE MISSED THAT DAY, AND AGAIN, SHE RECEIVED AN A PLUS THAT CYCLE. FINALLY, THE PARENT ALLEGED THE TEACHER REMOVED THE STUDENT FROM HER CLASS. THIS IS NOT ACCURATE, ACCORDING TO WHAT IS IN OUR TESTIMONY AND IN OUR RECORD. MITCHELL, PRINCIPAL MITCHELL TESTIFIED THAT ABSENT A DISCIPLINE ISSUE, NO TEACHER, INCLUDING THIS TEACHER AT ISSUE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REMOVE A TEACHER FROM A CLASS. HE WOULD NEVER ALLOW THAT. [02:15:01] NOT BECAUSE A STUDENT HAS AN IEP OR IS ON A SECTION 504 PLAN. ON PAGE 43 OF THE TRANSCRIPT, MITCHELL TESTIFIED THAT THE SCHEDULE CHANGE WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE TEACHER DURING A CONFERENCE WITH THE PARENT, THE TEACHER, AND AP JOHNSON, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL JOHNSON. THE PARENT APPROVED OF THIS CHANGE DURING THE MEETING. PRINCIPAL MITCHELL TESTIFIED THAT THIS SUGGESTION WAS IN RESPONSE TO THE PARENTS ALLEGATION THAT THE STUDENT HAD BEEN ABUSED BY THE TEACHER OR MISTREATED BY THE TEACHER, AND IT WAS THE BEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD. >> THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THE PARENT REQUESTED THE STUDENT TO STAY IN THAT CLASS AFTER THAT CHANGE WAS MADE. ON PAGE 50, PRINCIPAL MITCHELL TESTIFIED THAT HE DID INVESTIGATE THE PARENTS ALLEGATIONS AND TOOK APPROPRIATE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS BASED ON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. IN ADDITION TO MAKING SURE THE STUDENT WAS ABLE TO MAKE UP HER TEST, MR. MITCHELL WORKED WITH THE TEACHER TO IMPROVE THE SYLLABUS, SO THE MAKEUP POLICY WAS CLEAR GOING FORWARD. THAT'S ON PAGE 41. HE ALSO IMPROVED THE SCHOOL'S PROCEDURES FOR NOTIFYING TEACHERS WHEN STUDENTS WERE ON A SCHOOL FIELD TRIP, SO THEY WOULDN'T BE MARKED ABSENT. HE ALSO HELD MEETINGS. HE TESTIFIED THAT HE HELD MEETINGS WITH THE ENTIRE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW EXPECTATIONS IN TERMS OF CREATING A POSITIVE CULTURE. THE TESTIMONY AND THE EXHIBITS SHOW THAT PRINCIPAL MITCHELL DID EXACTLY WHAT CAMPUS LEADERSHIP SHOULD DO. THEY HEARD FROM THE PARENTS, THEY INVESTIGATED, AND THEY TOOK APPROPRIATE ACTION THAT RESULTED IN CORRECTIONS TO THE STUDENTS GRADES. EVEN IF THE TEACHERS CLASSROOMS FELT UNFAIR OR HARSH, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT LEVEL 1 OR LEVEL 2 THAT THEY WERE UNFAIRLY APPLIED TO THIS PARTICULAR STUDENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR REASON. FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS, THE REQUEST TO EITHER TERMINATE OR REPRIMAND THE TEACHER WAS DENIED AT LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2. FIRST, AS I SAID, EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND THEY DO NOT OCCUR DURING THE F&G GRIEVANCE PROCESS. FURTHER, THE CAMPUS CORRECTED ALL OF THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE PARENTS AND WE DON'T ALLOW A PARENT TO TAKE RETRIBUTION AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE BY DEMANDING THEIR TERMINATION DURING A GRIEVANCE PROCESS. AS I STATED EARLIER, THE OTHER ITEMS OF RELIEF WERE GRANTED. IN CLOSING, THE DISTRICT'S DECISION AT LEVEL 2 SHOULD BE UPHELD BECAUSE ALL RELIEF THAT CAN BE GRANTED UNDER STATE LAW AND BOARD POLICY HAS BEEN GRANTED AT THIS TIME. >> YES YOU HAVE A MINUTE LEFT. GO AHEAD. >> I'VE PERSONALLY SPOKEN TO TWO OTHER PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THEY HAVE FILED FORMAL GRIEVANCES AGAINST VANESSA CURRY FOR VERBAL ABUSE OR BULLYING BEHAVIOR. I'M GOING TO GET THOSE RECORDS AND IF THERE ARE MORE, I AM GOING TO GET THOSE RECORDS AND I'M GOING TO TURN THEM ALL OVER THE DA'S OFFICE AND ASK THEM TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THERE'S CHILD ENDANGERMENT IN THIS BECAUSE ALL WE'VE WANTED FROM THE BEGINNING IS SOMEBODY TO TAKE THIS CLAIM THAT VANESSA CURRY IS A WHO BULLIES STUDENTS, BULLIES PARENTS, AND BULLIES OTHER EMPLOYEES AT THAT SCHOOL AND YOU JUST WON'T. >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? NO. THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS AND IT'S NOW TIME FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE OUR DECISION ON THE ISSUES BEFORE US. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? >> YES. I MOVE THAT DECISION OF THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER AND DENIED THE GRIEVANCE. >> SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES. A LETTER NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHOULD BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD OF RELATIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 8:29 PM. THANK YOU. [02:20:49] THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS CONSIDER THE PARENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION HEARING FILED BY MELISSA YARBOROUGH, A PARENT AT WHARTON DUAL LANGUAGE ACADEMY. STUDENT HEARINGS ARE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS BOTH PARTIES TO A HEARING REQUESTS THAT BE CONDUCTED IN OPEN SESSION. IN ADDITION, HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS ABOUT DISTRICT EMPLOYES WILL BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION, UNLESS EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO THE HEARING REQUEST AN OPEN HEARING. IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION, DURING THIS HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ITS ATTORNEYS UNDER THE TERMS OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071. ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. FOR THE RECORD, MELISSA YARBOROUGH IS PRESENT. MYRA CHIKERIN, WITH ROGERS MORRIS, AND GROVER LP IS REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENT AND ATASHA WOODS, HIC GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT. MS. YARBOROUGH, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE TO OPEN OR CLOSED? OPEN, IT IS. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER BOARD POLICY AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES WERE CORRECTLY APPLIED TO THE AGREEMENT, AND WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS VIOLATED THOSE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. MS. YARBOROUGH, YOU'LL PROCEED FIRST. YOU'LL BE ALLOWED 10 MINUTES TO MAKE A PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD FOLLOWED BY A 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION. MS. CHIKERIN PRESENTATIONS MUST BE BASED ON THE LEVEL TWO HEARING TRANSCRIPT. YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR 10 MINUTES FOR REBUTLLE OR USE THE WHOLE 10 MINUTES UP TO YOU. PERFECT. OKAY, YOU MAY BEGIN. >> TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND, LAST SCHOOL YEAR I REFUSED MY CHILD'S PARTICIPATION IN THE STAR ASSESSMENT FOR MORAL REASONS. I TOOK THIS ACTION WITH AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENT UNDER TEXAS EDUCATION CODE THAT MY CHILD WOULD BE GIVEN A SCORE OF ZERO. THIS ACTION WAS NOT TAKEN TO AVOID AN ASSESSMENT, BUT TO ASSERT MY OPPOSITION TO THE SYSTEM OF HIGH STAKES TESTING, WHICH HAS DILUTED EDUCATION AND CAUSED NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES. I REFUSED TO BE COMPLICIT IN THIS STATE SANCTIONED ATTACK ON OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION. DESPITE MY DOCUMENTED REFUSAL, THE SCHOOL STILL MADE MY CHILD SIT FOR THE FIFTH GRADE READING MATH AND SCIENCE STAR ASSESSMENTS LAST APRIL. BECAUSE WE WERE REFUSING STAR, MY CHILD DID NOT TOUCH THE LAPTOP TO TAKE ANY OF THE THREE STAR ASSESSMENTS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO HER. AS A RESULT OF FORCING MY CHILD TO SIT THROUGH THESE TESTS THAT WE WERE REFUSING ON MORAL GROUNDS, THE SCHOOL CAUSED ANXIETY AND EMOTIONAL STRESS WHEN IT MADE MY CHILD SIT FOR THE STAR ASSESSMENT, DESPITE HAVING MY DOCUMENTED REFUSAL ON RECORD. THEY PUT HER IN THE INAPPROPRIATE AND DISTRESSING POSITION OF BEING FORCED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN HONORING HER PARENTS AND FAMILY VALUES OR FOLLOWING HER TEACHERS ORDERS. TEA HAS A CLEAR REQUIREMENT WHICH APPEARS ON THE HISD ASSESSMENT NON PARTICIPATION IMPLICATION FORM THAT I SIGNED STATING THAT THE DISTRICT MUST GIVE A SCORE OF ZERO ON A STAR ASSESSMENT THAT A STUDENT REFUSES TO TAKE. IN OTHER WORDS, IT ALLOWS REFUSAL WHICH I DID IN WRITING PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT DATE. THE SCHOOL TRIED TO COERCE MY CHILD TO TAKE THE ASSESSMENT IN ORDER TO AVOID HAVING HER SCORE OF ZERO REFLECT ON THE SCHOOL. IN DOING SO, THEY CAUSED MY CHILD ANXIETY AND EMOTIONAL STRESS. THE OTHER PART OF MY GRIEVANCE IS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON A TEST MAKEUP DAY. A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THAT. ON APRIL 16TH, MY CHILD RETURNED TO SCHOOL AFTER AN ABSENCE THE PREVIOUS DAY. SHE WAS REMOVED FROM HER CORE CLASSES TO SIT IN A SEPARATE ROOM IN FRONT OF A MAKEUP STAR READING ASSESSMENT. [02:25:01] THE SCHOOL HAD MY DOCUMENTED REFUSAL AND MY CHILD NEVER TOUCHED THAT MAKEUP STAR ASSESSMENT, YET THEY FORCED HER TO SIT THERE FOR 2.5 HOURS, DENYING HER THE INSTRUCTION THAT HER PEERS RECEIVED. ON THE DAY OF MY CHILD'S ABSENCE, AN ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL CALLED ME TO TELL ME THAT THEY WOULD BE REMOVING HER FROM CLASS UPON HER RETURN TO GIVE HER THAT STAR ASSESSMENT. I REMINDED THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL OF MY REFUSAL AND I ASKED HER HOW LONG THEY WERE PLANNING TO KEEP MY DAUGHTER OUT OF CLASS TO NOT TAKE A MAKEUP ASSESSMENT BECAUSE THEY KNEW SHE WOULD NOT BE TAKING IT. THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL DIDN'T ANSWER ME AND REFERRED ME TO NOT THE PRINCIPAL, BUT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WENDY CAGE, WHO WROTE THE FOLLOWING ON APRIL 17TH. MS. YARBOROUGH, IT IS DETERMINED BY YOUR CHILD, ALL MY BEST WENDY KRAFT. COURSE, MY CHILD HAD ABSOLUTELY NO SAY IN THE MATTER. MISS KRAFT'S RESPONSE APPEARS TO MEAN THAT IT DEPENDED ON WHETHER MY CHILD DID WHAT THE SCHOOL WANTED. THIS SOUNDS LIKE RETALIATION AND COERCION. AFTER PRESSING MS. CAGE FURTHER ON THE QUESTION, SHE FINALLY REPLIED ON APRIL 21ST WRITING, DIRECTED FROM DISTRICT GUIDANCE, THE CAMPUS USES THEIR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT TO DETERMINE HOW LONG A STUDENT WILL HAVE THE DEVICE IN FRONT OF THEM. IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN THE PRINCIPAL AT MY CHILD'S CAMPUS LACKS PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT. BECAUSE WHAT THEY DID ON APRIL 16 WAS COMPLETELY UNPROFESSIONAL, JEOPARDIZING MY CHILD'S EDUCATION, BECAUSE SHE MISSED 2.5 HOURS OF CLASS AND HER EMOTIONAL WELL BEING AND PUTTING THE CAMPUS AT RISK OF COMPLIANCE VIOLATIONS. THEIR ACTIONS NOT ONLY LACK COMMON DECENCY AND COMMON SENSE. THEY VIOLATE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE, SECTION 25.002 A, WHICH ENTITLES CHILDREN TO THE BENEFITS OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. TEXAS EDUCATION CODE, SECTION 25.001, WHICH GUARANTEES EQUAL ACCESS TO PUBLIC EDUCATION, AND SECTION 28.002, WHICH OBLIGATES THE DISTRICT TO PROVIDE INSTRUCTION IN ESSENTIAL CURRICULUM AREAS. THIS WAS ARBITRARY EXCLUSION FROM THE INSTRUCTIONAL DAY, ESPECIALLY WHEN NO VALID ACADEMIC OR DISCIPLINARY JUSTIFICATION EXIST FOR HER REMOVAL FOR 2.5 HOURS. THE BOTTOM OF THE HISD ASSESSMENT NON PARTICIPATION IMPLICATION FORM THAT I SIGNED STATES ANY STUDENT WHO DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE STATE MANDATED ASSESSMENTS AT THE REQUEST OF THEIR PARENT OR GUARDIAN WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OR DISCIPLINARY ACTION. HER REMOVAL FROM THREE OF HER MORNING CLASSES AND CORE CONTENT WAS A NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCE BY FORCING MY KID TO SIT INACTIVE FOR 2.5 HOURS MISSING CLASS TIME, KNOWING THAT SHE WAS REFUSING THE ASSESSMENT AND THAT I HAD FORMALLY REFUSED IT FOR HER. THE SCHOOL USED PUNITIVE MEASURES AGAINST HER WITHOUT DUE PROCESS IN RETALIATION FOR MY ADVOCACY FOR REFUSING PARTICIPATION. I'M NOT ASKING YOU FOR MUCH IN MY REMEDIES, I'M JUST ASKING FOR YOU ALL TO TELL ME THE TRUTH OF WHY AND HOW THIS HAPPENED. APOLOGIES TO ME AND MY CHILD, ESPECIALLY TO MY CHILD, AND A CLARIFICATION OF PROCEDURES, SO THIS DOESN'T CONTINUE TO HAPPEN TO MORE STUDENTS. >> THANK YOU. MS. CHIKERIN, YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CAMPO, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I AM JOINED HERE TONIGHT BY DR. VERONICA CALEDON, THE PRINCIPAL OF WHARTON DUAL LANGUAGE ACADEMY. WE ARE HERE TO REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THE APPEAL BEFORE YOU AND UPHOLD THE LEVEL 2 DECISION OF DOCTOR SALS. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT DOCTOR SALS IS NOT THE ONLY LEVEL 2 HEARING OFFICER TO ADDRESS THE EXACT SAME ISSUE CONCERNING STAR TESTING OPT OUT. IN FACT, INCLUDED IN THE RECORD IS A LEVEL 2 DISPOSITION AUTHORED BY ATTORNEY FELA ELSALDE EXAMINING THE VERY SAME ALLEGATIONS RAISED BY MS. YARBOROUGH. MS. ELSALDE REACHED THE VERY SAME CONCLUSION. THERE IS NOTHING UNLAWFUL OR ILLEGAL ABOUT ADMINISTERING THE STAR TEST EXAM TO EACH AND EVERY STUDENT. IN FACT, THE ADMINISTRATION MAINTAINS THAT THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE COMPELS THE DISTRICT TO ADMINISTER THE TEST. NOW, BEFORE I GET INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF MY ARGUMENT, DR. CELEDON AND I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE. [02:30:01] MS. YARBOROUGH IS A COMMITTED PARENT AS DEMONSTRATED BY HER ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF HER CHILD. THE DISTRICT BENEFITS FROM INVOLVEMENT AND INPUT PARENTS LIKE HER. AS A PARENT, MS. YARBOROUGH MAY WELL BE DISSATISFIED WITH THE DISTRICT'S DECISION TO ADMINISTER THE STAR TEST TO ALL STUDENTS AND THAT IS HER RIGHT. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LAW OR AN HISD BOARD POLICY THAT RESTRICTS THE DISTRICT'S ABILITY TO ADMINISTER THE TEST TO EACH AND EVERY ELIGIBLE STUDENT, INCLUDING MS. YARBOROUGH'S CHILD. STUDENTS CAN ELECT NOT TO TAKE THE TEST, BUT THE DISTRICT IS OPERATING IN A LAWFUL MANNER WHEN PLACING THE EXAM IN FRONT OF EVERY STUDENT. LET'S START BY EXAMINING THE TEXT OF THE LAW, WHICH IS AT ISSUE IN THIS DISPUTE, TEXAS EDUCATION CODE SECTION 26.01, EXCUSE ME, WHICH IS IDENTIFIED IN YOUR RECORD AS ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT 12. IF YOU TURN TO ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT 12, THAT IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISION WE'RE DISCUSSING. IF YOU NOTICED HERE, THE LANGUAGE AND I'M READING DIRECTLY FROM THIS PROVISION, A PARENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO REMOVE THE PARENT'S CHILD FROM A CLASS OR OTHER SCHOOL ACTIVITY TO AVOID A TEST OR TO PREVENT THE CHILD FROM TAKING A SUBJECT FOR AN ENTIRE SEMESTER. THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS. NOW, WE'RE GOING TO TURN TO HISD BOARD POLICY EK LOCAL, WHICH IS ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT 13. THIS IS THE BOARD'S LOCAL POLICY GOVERNING THIS VERY SUBJECT. FIRST, AND THE POLICY VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT STUDENTS MAY NOT OPT OUT OF STANDARDIZED OR ANY OTHER TESTS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. THE POLICY GOES ON TO STATE THAT THE DISTRICT HAS A FORM ENTITLED ASSESSMENT NON PARTICIPATION CLIFICATION FORM, WHICH A PARENT CAN SUBMIT IN THE EVENT THE PARENT DOES NOT WANT THEIR CHILD TO PARTICIPATE IN A STATE MANDATED ASSESSMENT, LIKE STAR. BUT LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE AT THE END OF THE SECTION. THE FORM FUNCTIONS AS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THE PARENT UNDERSTANDS THE IMPLICATION OF THE STUDENT'S PARTICIPATION. BUT THIS IS KEY, AND I QUOTE, THE FORM IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE AN AUTHORIZATION FOR A TEST EXEMPTION REQUEST. IT'S SIMPLY AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE. FILLING OUT THAT FORM DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CHILD IS BEING EXEMPTED. NOW, LET'S LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC FORM COMPLETED BY MS. YARBOROUGH IDENTIFIED AS ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT 8. >> THIS IS THE FORM IN QUESTION. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE FACE OF THIS FORM THAT SUGGEST IN ANY WAY THAT COMPLETION OF THE FORM PREVENTS THE DISTRICT FOR ADMINISTERING THE STAR OR ANY OTHER STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENTS. IN FACT, THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE EXPLICITLY STATES THAT STUDENTS MAY NOT OPT OUT. AGAIN, AS WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED WHEN LOOKING AT THE BOARD POLICY, THE FUNCTION OF THE FORM IS TO OUTLINE THE IMPLICATIONS OF NON PARTICIPATION IN STATE MANDATED ASSESSMENTS, WHICH A PARENT THEN ACKNOWLEDGES. AS I SAID, NOTHING IN THIS FORM BARS OR PREVENTS TEST ADMINISTRATION. IN HER GRIEVANCE. THERE WE GO. MISS YARBOROUGH CONTENDS THAT THE DISTRICT'S INTERPRETATION IS IN CONFLICT WITH TEA GUIDANCE, AND SHE SPECIFICALLY CITES A 2022 E MAIL THAT JULIE COLE, TEA'S DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY PUBLICATIONS WROTE. ACCORDING TO MISS YARBOROUGH, TEA GUIDANCE AFFIRMS THAT STUDENTS WHOSE PARENTS HAVE REFUSED TESTING SHOULD NOT BE PLACED IN FRONT OF A MAKEUP EXAM. WELL, I WAS VERY CURIOUS ABOUT THIS CLAIM, AND I ACTUALLY CONTACT THE TEAS STUDENT ASSESSMENT DIVISION. I GOT A WRITTEN REPLY FROM DONNA WIESE, WHICH MAY BE FOUND AS HISD ADMINISTRATION EXHIBIT 11. TURNING TO THAT, YOU WILL SEE THAT SHE VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT ALL STUDENTS ENROLLED IN TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE REQUIRED BY FEDERAL AND STATE LAW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TEXAS ASSESSMENT PROGRAM. AND SHE GOES ON TO STATE, DISTRICTS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A STAR TESTING OPPORTUNITY FOR STUDENTS. THIS STATEMENT ABSOLUTELY SUPPORTS WHAT HISD IS CURRENTLY DOING AND DID IN APRIL 2025. I ALSO REACHED OUT TO MISS COLE, THE PERSON THAT IS REFERENCED IN MISS ARBO'S GRIEVANCE. HER REPLY TO ME IS IDENTIFIED AS EXHIBIT 10. IT IS EVEN MORE EXPLICIT. [02:35:02] FIRST, SHE NOTES THAT HER 2022 EMAIL HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. THEN SHE GOES ON TO STATE THE AGENCY'S GUIDANCE IS AS FOLLOW. STUDENTS ARE REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE AND DISTRICTS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE TESTING OPPORTUNITY TO STUDENTS. WHAT THAT OPPORTUNITY LOOKS LIKE VARIES AND IS DETERMINED AT THE LOCAL DISTRICT LEVEL. AS INDICATED IN THE TEXAS EDUCATION CODE, A PARENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO REMOVE THE PARENT'S CHILD FROM A CLASS FOR OTHER SCHOOL ACTIVITY TO AVOID A TEST. THERE IS NO MECHANISM IN PLACE TO AVOID STATE TESTING. BASED ON THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE EDUCATION CODE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE POSITION OF THE TEA. THE ADMINISTRATION DETERMINED AND NOW HAS MADE IT CLEAR TO ALL CAMPUSES THAT HISD IS PUTTING THE TEST IN FRONT OF ALL STUDENTS. PERIOD. WHETHER A STUDENT SIMPLY SITS THERE OR CLICKS THROUGH THE EXAM WITHOUT ANSWERING A SINGLE QUESTION OR SAYS, I'M NOT TAKING THIS EXAM, HISD IN THAT SITUATION HAS FULFILLED ITS LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AS BORNE OUT BY THE COMMUNICATIONS WE JUST LOOKED AT FROM BOTH MISS COLE AND MISS WISE. DOCTOR SALES CORRECTLY UPHELD THE ADMINISTRATION'S INTERPRETATION. IT IS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, AND IT IS NOT ILLEGAL, NOTWITHSTANDING MISS YARBROUGH'S ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY. DOCTOR SALZ'S DECISION IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH FELLOW HEARING OFFICER FEMA LZALDE. WE CONTEND THAT THEY BOTH REACHED THE RIGHT CONCLUSION. FOR THAT REASON, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THE GRIEVANCE PENDING BEFORE YOU AND UPHOLD THE LEVEL TWO DISPOSITION. THANK YOU. >> I CAN I APOLOGIZE FOR FORCING ME TO LISTEN TO. >> NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU. MISS YARBOROUGH, DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A REBUTTAL STATEMENT IF YOU HAVE THREE OR 4 MINUTES. NO. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSE SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN MEETINGS ACT SUBSECTION 551004 THROUGH 5F10 89. SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION VOTE OR DECISION ON ANY MATTER CONSIDERING THE CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED, SUCH FINAL ACTION VOTE OR DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN IN OPEN MEETING COVERED BY THIS NOTICE UPON THE RECONVENING OF THE PUBLIC MEETING OR AT A SUBSEQUENT OPEN MEETING OF THE BOARD UPON NOTICE THEREOF. BOARD HAS ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 8:48 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 20TH, 2025. THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW OPEN SESION. THE TIME IS 9:16 P.M. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? >> YES. I MOVE THAT WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LEVEL TWO HEARING OFFICER AND DENY THE GRIEVANCE. >> A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE MOTION A SECOND. I THERE DISCUSSION, IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR OF SAY AYE. MOTION PASSES. A LETTER NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BOARD RELATIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 9:17 P.M. THANK YOU. WHAT'S THAT? >> THAT'S. WELL. THIS GUY MUST HAVE DIED. BATTERY. THAT'S I GOT ONE. WE DO? GOOD. THAT ONE. THAT'S WE'LL JUST USE THIS ONE. MAYBE. >> EVERYBODY HERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE. OKAY, GOOD. YOU READY TO GO. PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE DISPUTE FILED BY PEOPLE'S CHOICE ASSOCIATION UNION 233 TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES. HEARING INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DITRICT EMPLOYEES TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS THE DISTRICT EMPLOYEES, REQUESTED OPEN HEARING. IF BOTH PARTIES REQUESTED OPEN SESSION DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, [02:40:05] WE CAN GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ATTORNEYS UNDER THE TERMS OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551071. IF ANY BOARD MEMBERS WISH TO SEEK COUNSEL ADVICE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE CECILIA, EDWARDS, AND SHAKA SHAMIKA LEWIS WITH PEOPLE'S CHOICE ASSOCIATION UNION, ARE PRESENT. MISS CHICKERIN, WITH ROGERS MORRIS AND GROVER LLP, REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENT. COSH WOOD, HST GENERAL COUNSEL IS ALSO PRESENT. MISS EDWARDS AND MISS LEWIS, YOU WISH TO CONTINUE AN OPEN SESSION OR CLOSED? OPEN, IT IS. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD OR WHETHER BOARD POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES WERE CORRECTLY APPLIED TO THE GRIEVAN AND WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS VIOLATED THOSE POLICIES OR PROCEDURES. MISS EDWARDS AND MISS LEWIS, YOU WILL PROCEED FIRST. YOU'LL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MISS THICKERING. PRESENTATION MUST BE BASED ON LEVEL TWO HEARING TRANSCRIPT. MISS EDWARDS AND MISS LEWIS, YOU MAY RESERVE YOUR PART OF YOUR 10 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MISS THICKERING. BOTH SIDES WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEND YOUR TIME OR YOU CAN JUST RESERVE IT AS YOU WISH AT THE END? GREAT. YOU MAY BEGIN. >> GOOD EVENING. PRESIDENT AND TRUSTEES. MY NAME IS CECILIA EDWARDS, AND I'M THE PRESIDENT OF PEOPLE'S CHOICE ASSOCIATION UNION. I STAND HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY ON BEHALF OF 233 TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES, WHO MAKE THIS DISTRICT RUN LITERALLY. WHAT BRINGS US HERE TODAY IS NOT JUST A POLICY CHANGE. IT IS A BROKEN PROMISE. A LONG STANDING PRACTICE, AND ILLEGAL VIOLATION HAS HARMED A HUNDREDS OF BUS DRIVERS AND BUS ATTENDANTS. FOR OVER 15 YEARS, HID HAS OFFERED A GUARANTEE SIX HOUR WORK DAY, TO ITS BUS DRIVERS AND BUS ATTENDANTS. THAT GUARANTEE WAS NOT NEW. IT WAS A LONG STANDING, WELL ESTABLISHED CORNERSTONE OF HID TRANSPORTATION OPERATION, AND A MAJOR SELLING POINT FOR HIRING AND RETENTION. THIS PROMISE PUBLISHED ON HID OFFICIAL WEBSITE, REPEATED VERBALLY BY SUPERVISOR, TRAINEES, AND HR, RELIED UPON BY DRIVERS, ATTENDANTS YEAR AFTER YEAR AS PART OF THEIR EXPECTATIONS OF STABLE EMPLOYMENT. UNDER TEXAS LAW, THESE LIMITS FORM THE BASIS OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL. WHEN AN EMPLOYEE MAKES A PROMISE, KNOWS EMPLOYES RELY ON IT, AND EMPLOYEES DO RELY ON IT, THE LAW PREVENTS THE EMPLOYER, FROM SIMPLY TAKING THE PROMISE AWAY, AND DO BUS DRIVERS AND ATTENDANTS DID RELY ON IT. MANY DRIVERS RENEWED THEIR EMPLOYMENT WITH HID BECAUSE OF LONGSTANDING 15 YEAR PLUS SIX HOUR GUARANTEE. THEY TURNED DOWN POSITIONS IN OTHER DISTRICTS, REORGANIZE THEIR FAMILY SCHEDULES, PLAN THEIR INCOME AROUND THE HOURS HID PUBLICLY PROMISED. THEY PUBLICLY PROMISED THIS. THEN HALFWAY THROUGH 2024 AND 2025 SCHOOL YEAR, HID ELIMINATED THE SIX HOUR GUARANTEE OVERNIGHT, WITHOUT WARNING, WITHOUT A PHASE IN, WITHOUT A CONCERN OR THE IMPACT. THIS SUDDEN REMOVAL DID REAL HARM. SOME DRIVERS IN ATTENDANCE LOST INCOME. SOME DRIVERS IN ATTENDANCE LOST FINANCIAL STABILITY, AND SOME DRIVERS AND ATTENDANTS LOST ELIGIBILITY FOR FMLA, WHICH IS FEDERAL PROTECTED MEDICAL LEAVE BECAUSE THEIR ANNUAL HOURS FELL BELOW THE REQUIRED THRESHOLD. THIS DISTRICT NOT ONLY BROKE A PROMISE, IT TOOK AWAY FOUNDATIONAL EMPLOYMENT TERM THAT EXISTED FOR MORE THAN A DECADE. BUT WHAT HAPPENED NEXT REVEALS EVEN MORE? AFTER WE FILED THE GRIEVANCE ON BEHALF OF 233 TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES, HID BEGAN SCHEDULING MOST DRIVERS BACK UP TO 6 HOURS. NOT BECAUSE DISTRICT REINSTATED THE GUARANTEE, BUT BECAUSE THE DISTRICT WAS TRYING TO APPEAR COMPLIANT DURING THE FIGHT. WHILE STILL MAINTAINING ITS OFFICIAL POSITION, THERE IS NO SIX HOUR GUARANTEE. THIS IS NOT A CORRECTION. THIS IS A SCHEME, AND THE DRIVERS KNOW IT. WE ALL KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN ONCE THE GRIEVANCE IS OVER. THIS DISTRICT WOULD DROP THEIR HOURS AGAIN AND CLAIM THEY NEVER GAVE A GUARANTEE TO THE BEGINNING. WITH EVEN THOUGH HID RELIED ON THAT GUARANTEE FOR MORE THAN 15 YEARS TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN ITS DRIVERS IN ATTENDANCE. THIS IS WHY TEXAS PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL EXISTS TO PREVENT EMPLOYEES LIKE HSD. [02:45:06] FROM WRONGFULLY REMOVING LONG STANDING WELL KNOWN PROMISES THAT EMPLOYEES RELIED ON FOR THESE YEARS. THIS BRINGS ME TO THE NEXT POINT. HID HASTILY REMOVED THE LONG STANDING SIX HOUR MINIMUM GUARANTEE FOR BUS DRIVERS AND ATTENDANTS, DIRECTLY UNDERMINES EMPLOYEE'S ABILITY TO QUALIFY FOR FMLA PROTECTION. UNDER THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT, AN EMPLOYEE MUST WORK ONE AND 250 HOURS IN THE PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS TO QUALIFY.FOR OVER 15 YEARS, HID INSURED DRIVERS AND ATTENDANTS MET THIS THRESHOLD BY GUARANTEEING 6 HOURS PER DAY. DRIVERS AND ATTENDANTS RELIED ON THAT GUARANTEE WHEN DECIDING TO STAY WITH HSD INSTEAD OF MOVING TO OTHER DISTRICTS. BUT SUDDENLY, WITHOUT NOTICE, WITHOUT CONSULTATION, WITHOUT ANY TRANSITION PLAN, THE DISTRICT MOVED THE SIX HOUR GUARANTEE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCHOOL YEAR. WHAT HAPPENED? THE DRIVERS AND ATTENDANTS IMMEDIATELY LOST THE ABILITY TO TAKE PROTECTED MEDICAL LEAVE FOR THEMSELVES OR THEIR FAMILIES. WHEN A DISTRICT KNOWS ITS EMPLOYEES RELY ON CERTAIN HOURS TO QUALIFY FOR FEDERAL PROTECTION, THEN REMOVE THOSE HOURS. THAT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT. THAT IS NOT A BUDGET DECISION. THIS IS A CONSTRUCTIVE BARRIER TO FMLA ELIGIBILITY AND TO RAISE SERIOUS CONCERNS UNDER FEDERAL LAW. HOW DID THEY JUSTIFY THIS? WE WERE TOLD THIS CHANGE WAS NECESSARY DUE TO BUDGET CONSTRAINTS. YET THE SAME TIME, HID APPROVED A LARGE BONUS FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT, ALLOCATED MILLIONS IN INCREASED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, AND CONTINUE RAISING SALARIES FOR UPPER LEVEL ADMINISTRATORS, WHILE CUTTING FROM THE LOWEST PAID ESSENTIAL WORKERS FOR TRANSPORTATION CHILDREN SAFELY EVERY DAY? I'M SORRY FOR TRANSPORTING CHILDREN SAFELY FOR EVERY DAY. THIS IS NOT A BUDGET MANAGEMENT. THIS IS NOT A BUDGET TARGETING, TARGETING THE WORKERS WITH THE LEAST POWER TO PUSH BACK. WHEN THE DISTRICT REMOVES A GUARANTEE THAT HAS EXISTED FOR MORE THAN A DECADE, THEN CLAIMS DRIVERS CAN MAKE UP THE HOURS ONLY AFTER GRIEVANCES ARE FILED. EVERYONE HERE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS. HID WANTS TO AVOID LIABILITY DURING THE FIGHT, AND THEN PLANS TO QUALITY REDUCE THE HOURS ONCE THE PRESSURE IS OFF. THIS BOARD, HAS A LEGAL AND MORAL OBLIGATION TO STOP THIS. HID MUST REINSTATE THE SIX HOUR GUARANTEE, NOT JUST BECAUSE IT'S FAIR, NOT JUST BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A LONG STANDING PRACTICE, BUT BECAUSE FAILING TO DO SO PLACE THE DISTRICT IN A RISK OF FEDERAL, FMLA VIOLATIONS AND EXPOSES THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES TO FINANCIAL HARM. TONIGHT, WE ASK THE BOARD FOR THREE THINGS. ONE, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HID HAVE A LONG LASTING, LONG STANDING WRITTEN AND VERBAL SIX HOUR GUARANTEE RELIED UPON FOR OVER 15 YEARS. T, DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO RESTORE THE SIX HOUR MINIMUM AS AN OFFICIAL PUBLISHED PERM POLICY, NOT A TEMPORARY GESTURE DURING A GRIEVANCE. T, ENSURE RELIEF FOR DRIVERS WHO LOST INCOME OR FMA E ABILITY, I'M SORRY, ELIGIBILITY, BECAUSE HSD WITHDREW A PROMISE THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR MORE THAN A DECADE. HID TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES ARE THE BACKBONE OF THIS DISTRICT. THEREFORE, WE ASK THE BOARD TO ENSURE THAT HID HONORS ITS PROMISE TO THEM. THANK YOU. >> YOU MAY BE AGAIN. THANK YOU. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES. GO AHEAD. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CAMPO, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I AM JOINED HERE TONIGHT BY CARRIE FEINBERG, HISDS CHIEF OF BOARD'S ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE OVERSIGHT OVER THE DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT. IT'S LATE AND YOU ARE PROBABLY READY TO GO HOME. I'M GOING TO TRY TO SHRINK MY COMMENTS HERE. THERE ARE THREE KEY POINTS THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE TONIGHT. FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CORRECT A STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE BY MISS EDWARDS THAT THIS WAS A MID-YEAR CHANGE. LET ME BE VERY CLEAR. IT WAS NOT A MID YEAR CHANGE. THIS CHANGE, THE ELIMINATION OF THE GUARANTEE WENT INTO EFFECT FOR THE '25 '26 SCHOOL YEAR. AT THE TIME THE GRIEVANCE WAS FILED AND AT THE TIME THE LEVEL 2 HEARING WAS HELD, NONE OF THE GRIEVANCE HAD SUSTAINED ANY FINANCIAL HARM OR INJURY BECAUSE THE NEW COMPENSATION PLAN, AS I SAID, HAD NOT TAKEN EFFECT. [02:50:03] IN OTHER WORDS, THE HARM ALLEGED BY PEOPLE'S CHOICE WAS ENTIRELY SPECULATIVE AND THUS NOT RIGHT FOR REVIEW. THAT WAS A POINT WE MADE TO THE LEVEL 2 HEARING OFFICER. NUMBER 2, CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU HAVE JUST HEARD, THE DRIVERS HAD NO LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION THAT THE GUARANTEE WOULD REMAIN IN PLACE FROM YEAR TO YEAR. I INCLUDED THE COMPENSATION PLANS FOR BOTH THE 2024 25 AND THE 2025 26 SCHOOL YEAR IN THE EXHIBITS. EXHIBIT 7 IS THE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE 2024 25 SCHOOL YEAR. THE SIX-HOUR GUARANTEE, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS GRIEVANCE, CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE 22 OF THAT DOCUMENT. YOU WILL SEE UNDER THE SECTION ENTITLED BUS DRIVER SUPPLEMENTAL COMPENSATION, THE EXPLICIT STATEMENT THAT AND I QUOTE, THE BUS DRIVER SUPPLEMENTAL COMPENSATION RATES AND RELATED GUIDELINES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME. IN OTHER WORDS, EMPLOYEES WERE PLACED ON NOTICE THAT THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY EXPECTATION THAT THE RATES AND GUIDELINES WOULD REMAIN IN PLACE GOING FORWARD. IF THEY HAD THAT EXPECTATION, IT WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR LANGUAGE FOUND IN THE COMPENSATION PLAN. ANOTHER THING TO NOTE ABOUT THE COMPENSATION PLANS, IF YOU COMPARE EXHIBIT 7, THE PLAN FOR '24 '25 WITH EXHIBIT 8, THE '25 '26 PLAN, YOU WILL SEE A COMPLETE SHIFT IN THE HOURLY RATES. UNDER THE CURRENT PLAN, DRIVERS ARE PAID $30-35 PER HOUR, WHERE UNDER THE FORMER YEARS PLAN, DRIVERS WERE PAID ON AVERAGE $18-20 AN HOUR. THAT BRINGS US TO MY THIRD AND PRIMARY POINT THAT I WANT TO ADDRESS WITH YOU TONIGHT. THE ADMINISTRATION HAD A LEGITIMATE RATIONAL BASIS FOR ELIMINATING THE MINIMUM GUARANTEE. THAT'S THE STANDARD WHEN YOU'RE REVIEWING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. THE HARSH REALITY IS THAT THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT WAS IN A DEEP FINANCIAL HOLE HEADING INTO THE CURRENT SCHOOL YEAR. THERE ARE SOME SOBERING NUMBERS IN THE TRANSCRIPT FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. ON PAGE 67 OF THE HEARING TRANSCRIPT, YOU WILL SEE MISS FEINBERG'S TESTIMONY THAT DURING THE '24 '25 SCHOOL YEAR, THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT SPENT APPROXIMATELY $4 MILLION ON OVERTIME. DURING THAT YEAR, THE DEPARTMENT EXCEEDED ITS BUDGETED PAYROLL COST BY APPROXIMATELY $12 MILLION. LET THOSE NUMBERS SINK IN. THAT IS THE REASON THAT MISS FEINBERG AND HISD LEADERSHIP BEGAN TO EXPLORE HOW THAT GAP COULD BE CLOSED. ONE THING MISS FEINBERG AND THE LEADERSHIP TEAM EVENTUALLY HONED IN ON WAS THE SIX-HOUR GUARANTEE. AS IT TURNS OUT, TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY, THE GUARANTEE WAS INTRODUCED DURING A TIME WHEN HISD WAS EXPERIENCING A SIGNIFICANT DIFFICULTY HIRING AND RETAINING DRIVERS. IT WAS A RECRUITMENT STRATEGY. THAT GUARANTEE IS NO LONGER NECESSARY BECAUSE TO ENSURE THAT THE TRANSPORTATION IS FULLY STAFFED. THAT'S NOT THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT WE HAVE. IN FACT, THE OPPOSITE IS NOW TRUE. DURING THE '24 '25 SCHOOL YEAR, THE DEPARTMENT HAD SO MUCH WORK TO BE DONE THAT IT HAD TO BE VERY STRATEGIC IN MANAGING OVERTIME COST. FACED WITH THESE ECONOMIC REALITIES, THE DECISION WAS ULTIMATELY MADE TO ELIMINATE THE SIX-HOUR RULE. WHAT WAS THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THAT DECISION? WELL, IF YOU TURN TO THE ADMINISTRATION'S EXHIBIT SPECIFICALLY EXHIBIT 4, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND SOME INTERESTING NUMBERS. AFTER PEOPLE'S CHOICE FILED THE GRIEVANCE, MISS FEINBERG DECIDED TO TEST THEIR THEORY THAT THERE WOULD BE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IMPOSED ON THE DRIVERS. AS IT TURNS OUT, BASED ON HER ANALYSIS, THE CHANGE WAS UNLIKELY TO HAVE ANY IMPACT ON DRIVERS WHO WANTED TO WORK AT LEAST SIX HOURS A DAY. EXHIBIT 4 IS A CHART REFLECTING THE PHYSICAL, FISCAL, I'M SORRY, '24 '25 COMPENSATION FOR ALL BUT SEVEN OF THE NAMED GRIEVANCE, AND THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOURS EACH GRIEVANT WORKED PER WEEK DURING THREE RANDOM SNAPSHOT WEEKS THAT MISS FEINBERG SELECTED. IF YOU SKIM DOWN, LET ME JUST WALK YOU THROUGH THIS FORM OR THIS CHART. YOU SEE THE EMPLOYEE'S NAME, [02:55:02] YOU SEE THEIR ID NUMBER. ON THE FAR RIGHT SIDE, THERE'S A COLUMN THAT IS THERE FISCAL YEAR 25 COMPENSATION. TO THE IMMEDIATE LEFT OF THAT COLUMN, YOU SEE AVERAGE, THAT IS THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOURS THAT EACH OF THESE EMPLOYEES WORKED, BASED ON THESE THREE RANDOM SNAPSHOT WEEKS THAT MISS FEINBERG SELECTED TO CONDUCT HER ANALYSIS. IF YOU SKIM DOWN THOSE COLUMNS, AND IF YOU TAKE IT ALL THE WAY, EXCEPT THE COLUMN ENTITLED AVERAGE, IF YOU GO ALL THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 6 OF THAT EXHIBIT, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED WAS 42.9 HOURS PER WEEK, WHICH IS ALMOST 13 HOURS MORE THAN 30 HOURS, WHICH WOULD BE ACHIEVED UNDER THE SIX-HOUR MINIMUM. THE SIX-HOUR MINIMUM GUARANTEE WAS NOT NECESSARY. IF FOR SOME REASON A DRIVER DOES COME UP SHORT DURING THE '25 '26 SCHOOL YEAR, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS ALSO MADE CHANGES TO THE ASSIGNMENTS OF EXTRA TRIPS, SUCH AS FIELD TRIPS AND TRANSPORTATION TO OFF CAMPUS SPORTING EVENTS. RATHER THAN BASING THE ASSIGNMENTS ON SENIORITY, WHICH HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, DRIVERS WHO DO NOT HIT A THREE-HOUR WEEKLY MINIMUM HAVE PRIORITY FOR THESE EXTRA TRIPS, ENABLING THEM TO MEET THE MINIMUM, MR. CAMPO AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE INTERRUPTION. >> WELL. >> AS BASED ON THE TESTIMONY FROM MISS FEINBERG IN THE TRANSCRIPT BEFORE YOU, RATHER THAN BASING THE ASSIGNMENTS ON SENIORITY, DRIVERS WHO DO NOT HIT A 30-HOUR WEEKLY MINIMUM HAVE PRIORITY NOW FOR THESE EXTRA TRIPS, ENABLING THEM IF THEY WANT TO WORK AT LEAST 6 HOURS PER DAY, THEY ARE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THOSE HOURS BY WORKING FOR THESE EXTRA TRIPS. THIS CHANGE ALSO TARGETS A SEPARATE GOAL, AND THAT IS REDUCING OVERTIME FOR THE MOST HIGHLY COMPENSATED DRIVERS IN THAT THE EXTRA TRIPS ARE DIRECTED TOWARDS DRIVERS WHO WORK FEWER HOURS NOW, THUS REDUCING THE TOTAL OVERTIME SITUATION. IN CONCLUSION, THE ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION TO ELIMINATE THE SIX-HOUR GUARANTEE WAS PREMISED ENTIRELY ON ECONOMIC REALITY. IT WAS NOT AN ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS ACTION. IT WAS NOT DISCRIMINATORY AND NOT ILLEGAL IN ANY WAY. THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS YOU ASKED WHEN YOU'RE SEEKING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION SHOULD BE UPHELD OR REVERSED. I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PRESENTED AN ENTIRELY RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE CHANGE. AS SUCH, THE ADMINISTRATION CONTENDS THAT THE DECISION IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO DEFERENCE AND THAT THE GRIEVANCE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. YOU HAVE, WHAT DO WE HAVE? >> THREE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL. >> GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. >> FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE THE ADVICE FROM SOMEONE WHO CAME OVER TRYING TO RETALIATE AFTER THE GRIEVANCE IS FILED. HER OPINION ON ANYTHING DOESN'T MATTER HERE, MISS FEINBERG. THE QUESTION HERE IS TEXAS PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL. IS THE DISTRICT LIABLE FOR TAKING THIS ACTION? THEY WILL BE. YOU ARE. FIRST QUESTION, DID HISD MAKE PROMISES? YES, THEY DID. IF YOU LOOK AT EMPLOYER EXHIBIT 4, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE DISTRICT STILL HAS UP UNTIL THE POINT WHEN WE FILED THE GRIEVANCE, THEY STILL HAD ADVERTISE FOR THE SIX-HOUR GUARANTEE. YES, IT WAS A GUARANTEE THAT THE EMPLOYEES RELIED ON. WAS THAT PROMISE WRITTEN OR CONVEYED? IT WAS IN LAW. DID THE EMPLOYEES RELY ON THEIR PROMISE? YES. BECAUSE IF THEY WANTED TO WORK FOR FOUR HOURS, THEY CAN GO TO ANOTHER DISTRICT. WHY WOULD I COME TO HISD AND DEAL WITH HISD, AND THEIR TYRANT AT THE TOP, IF I'M ONLY GOING TO MAKE FOUR HOURS. I FEEL THE SAME EXACT WAY. HISD HAS HAD A TYRANT AT THE TOP AND IS USING ALL HIS SUPERVISORS TO DO ALL THE MENIAL WORK FOR THEM. LISTEN. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE EMPLOYEES RELIED ON THE GUARANTEE. IT WAS A WRITTEN GUARANTEE. THE SUPERVISORS TOLD THEM ABOUT THE GUARANTEE. THE GUARANTEE CHANGES THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO QUALIFY FOR THE FMLA, WHICH IS ILLEGAL. YOU CAN'T HOLD THEM DOWN. ADMINISTRATION SAYS, [03:00:02] WELL, THEY'RE REACHING THE HOURS. WELL, THEN WHAT DO YOU GET OUT OF IT THEN? WHY NOT GIVE THEM A GUARANTEE IF THEY'RE MAKING HOURS? WHAT'S WRONG WITH NOT GIVING THEM A GUARANTEE? BECAUSE YOU MUST BENEFIT IT IN SOME TYPE OF WAY? BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW WHEN THIS GRIEVANCE IS DONE, YOU'RE GOING TO LOWER THEIR HOURS AND THEY WILL NOT MEET THE THRESHOLD, AND THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE OFF FOR THEIR FAMILY. IT HAS TO BE A BENEFIT OR WHY ARE YOU TAKING IT AWAY? COMMON SENSE. ANY REASONABLE PERSON CAN THINK THAT. IF THEY'RE MAKING ALL THE HOURS, EVERYTHING IS GREAT, THEIR PAY LOOKS SO GREAT, WHY ARE YOU TAKING IT FROM THEM? YOU SAY IT'S A BUDGET CUT. WELL, I SAY CUT MIKE MILES' MONEY DOWN. BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE FROM THE PEOPLE WHO DRIVE OUR BABIES EVERY DAY. THEY'RE ALREADY STRESSING. WHAT DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THEM? YOU SIT THERE ON YOUR STAND AND YOU GO AGAINST EVERY EMPLOYEE THAT'S COME BEFORE YOU, BUT THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT BRING THE KIDS TO THE TEACHERS TO TEACH. THEY NEED TO BE FINANCIALLY SECURE. AS A EX EMPLOYEE OF HISD MYSELF, YOU ARE HORRIBLE. YOU FOLLOW EVERYTHING THAT MIKE MILES DO WITHOUT STANDING ON YOUR OWN TWO FEET AND DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE EMPLOYEES IN THIS DISTRICT. YOU HAVE AIDED IN ALL OF HIS CHAOS. YOU GAVE MIKE MILES A RAISE. YOU DON'T HAVE BUSES. YOU DON'T HAVE PARTS. HE DOESN'T DO HIS JOB. TRANSPORTATION IS IN A DISARRAY. YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. THE SAFETY FOR THE CHILDREN, THE SPECIAL STICKERS ARE NOT INSPIRED ALMOST EVERY BUS. THEY'RE NEVER WASHED. THEY'RE NEVER CLEAN. PLEASE STAND AND TELL THE TRUTH. ARE THEY TELLING THE TRUTH STAND AND TELL THE BOARD, HOW YOU'RE DISRESPECTED. >> YOU GOT TO SEE IT'S YOUR PROBLEM, FOR HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET FIELD TRIP IF YOU HIRED SOMEBODY TO DO THEIR JOB. >> THE BUS IS STOPPING GOING DOWN THE STREET. >> DO IT. [BACKGROUND] YOU'RE DONE. [BACKGROUND] >> IS THAT KEYS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE AC UNITS THAT DO NOT HAVE AC UNITS. >> ANY QUESTIONS? [BACKGROUND] THE BOARD WILL CLOSE SESSION UNDER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE MEETINGS ACT SUBSECTION 04 THROUGH 551.089, SHOULD BOARD ACTION VOTE OR DECISION ON ANY MATTER CONSIDERING THE CLOSED ACTION VOTE OR SHALL BE TAKEN IN AN OPEN MEETING COVERED BY THE NOTICE UPON THE RECONVENING OF THE PUBLIC MEETING. SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD UPON NOTICE BOARD HAS RECESS A CLOSED SESSION AT 9:40 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 20, 2025. THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. THE TIME IS 9:53 P.M. DO YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? >> YES, SIR. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. FIRST, TO MISS EDWARDS AND MISS LEWIS, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO US. I THINK IT'S GENERATED A LOT OF DISCUSSION. AT THE END OF THE DAY, OUR DRIVERS ARE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. AS SOMEONE WITH TWO YOUNG KIDS IN THE DISTRICT, EVERY DAY, I SEE A DRIVER IN A BLUE BUS ROLLING DOWN OUR STREET, KEEP TAKING KIDS TO SCHOOL, TAKING KIDS FROM SCHOOL SAFELY. I APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. I THINK AS A DISTRICT, WE LOOK FORWARD TO COLLABORATIVELY WORKING TOGETHER TO WORK THROUGH SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE RAISED. WE VERY MUCH LOOK FORWARD TO DOING THAT. THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU FOR COMING TONIGHT. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE PROCESS. YOUR TIME IS WELL SPENT, AND WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU TO EACH OF YOU, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO STAYING CLOSE AND COLLABORATING ON THE ISSUES RAISED. THANK YOU. >> DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> YES. I MOVE THAT WE DENY ALL REQUESTED RELIEF NOT PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE LEVEL 2 HEARING OFFICER AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LEVEL 2 HEARING OFFICER. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED, NO. THE MOTION PASSES? A LETTER NOTIFYING THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD RELATIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THIS HEARING IS CLOSED AS OF 9:55 P.M. THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS. THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED AT 9:55 P.M. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.