[00:00:01] GOOD EVENING. THIS MEETING IS NOW CONVENED AT 5:07 P.M.. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE TO PLEASE SILENCE ALL CELL PHONES. A QUORUM OF BOARD MEMBERS IS PRESENT IN THE AUDITORIUM. I'M BOARD VICE PRESIDENT ANGELA LEMOND FLOWERS. I WILL PRESIDE OVER TONIGHT'S MEETING. I'M JOINED BY BOARD MEMBERS MARTY GOOSEN AND KAREN DUFFY. OUR 1ST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO HEAR FROM SPEAKERS TO AGENDA ITEMS. WE HAVE 3 REGISTERED SPEAKERS WHO WILL BE LIMITED TO 2 MINUTES EACH PER BOARD POLICY. PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR TOPIC. MISS SMITH. PLEASE CALL ALL SPEAKERS. I'D LIKE TO CALL DONNA GARNER, FOLLOWED BY RUTH KRAVITZ, FOLLOWED BY TANYA WELLS. DONNA GARNER. RUTH KRAVITZ. TIME TO SPEAK FOR 2 MINUTES. NON NES SCHOOLS ARE BEING CUT $200 PER STUDENT AND NES SCHOOLS ARE BEING CUT $100 PER STUDENT. PRINCIPALS ARE BEING TOLD TO CUT STAFF EVEN WHEN THEY CAN MEET THE TARGET BY CUTTING OTHER EXPENSES. THAT'S BAD FOR KIDS. THE JUNE BUDGET YOU APPROVED ASSUMED A 4000 STUDENT ENROLLMENT DROP, BUT THAT LOSS HAD ALREADY HAPPENED SINCE SNAPSHOT. FOR THAT BUDGET TO WORK HISD, YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE HAD TO ASSUME THAT NOT A SINGLE STUDENT WOULD HAVE LEFT BETWEEN LAST JUNE AND THIS COMING OCTOBER. THE BUDGET WAS OUT OF DATE WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN, AND THAT'S WRONG. ANOTHER 4500 KIDS HAVE LEFT SINCE THEN. HOW MANY MORE BEFORE? SNAPSHOT AND VERY DEAR TO MY HEART. AND I HOPE TO SOME OF YOU. I'M CONCERNED THAT YOU'RE CLOSING A PARK WHEN YOU DID NOT HAVE TO. JUST 3 YEARS AGO, GRIMES PARK WAS RENOVATED, ADDING WALKING PATHS, LIGHTS. FULLY FUNCTIONAL. FOOTBALL FIELD. BASKETBALL COURTS AND TENNIS COURTS. THE PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY HISD AND LEASED TO THE CITY OF HOUSTON SINCE 1977, AND FOR 30 YEARS THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN TRYING TO GET IT UPGRADED. FINALLY, WHEN IT GOT UPGRADED, YOU GUYS PAVED IT OVER. YOU TOLD THE PUBLIC THAT THE BUILDING WOULD BE BUILT ON GRIMES ELEMENTARY. I THOUGHT THAT WAS HAPPENING. GRIMES WAS CLOSED IN 2011. YOU NEVER SAID IT WOULD REQUIRE TEARING UP GRIMES PARK. YOU GUYS COULD INSTEAD MOVE THE KATE CENTER TO FAIRCHILD CLOSED, TO ROADS CLOSED, OR TO JONES HIGH SCHOOL, A VERY UNDERUTILIZED HIGH SCHOOL IN SUNNYSIDE WITH 22 ACRES. YOU WOULDN'T DO THIS TO PUMPKIN PARK AND RIVER OAKS. I THINK YOU WOULD NOT. AND ON THE RECENTLY CLOSED SCHOOLS, IF WE REALLY CARE ABOUT OUR COMMUNITIES, WE NEED TO LET INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS BY BURRUS SO THAT WE CAN DO THINGS FOR OUR COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. TANYA WELLS. GOOD EVENING. AS I'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE. I AM HERE AGAIN TO ADVOCATE FOR BURRUS AND INDEPENDENT HEIGHTS REDEVELOPMENT COUNCIL AS A PRESENTATION, I SENT YOU THE STORY OF A COMMUNITY THAT WAS BUILT BY ITS PEOPLE IS SEEING PIECES OF THAT COMMUNITY STEADILY LOST INDEPENDENT HEIGHTS IS THE 1ST INCORPORATED BLACK MUNICIPALITY IN TEXAS. AND THE INDEPENDENT HEIGHTS RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT IS LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. OUR COMMUNITY WAS BUILT THROUGH BLACK OWNERSHIP, EDUCATION, ENTERPRISE, AND AND SELF-DETERMINATION. BUT OVER TIME, WE HAVE WATCHED PIECES OF THAT LEGACY DISAPPEAR. HOMES DISAPPEAR, BUSINESSES DISAPPEAR, CHURCHES DISAPPEAR. AND NOW WE'RE WONDERING, WILL OUR WHOLE COMMUNITY DISAPPEAR? AS A PRESENTATION ILLUSTRATES, DEVELOPMENT AND GENTRIFICATION CONTINUE TO CHANGE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE MUST ASK HOW MUCH OF INDEPENDENT HEIGHTS CAN DISAPPEAR BEFORE THE COMMUNITY ITSELF DISAPPEARS WITH IT. THAT BRINGS US TO BURRUS. BURRUS IS MORE THAN REAL ESTATE. IT REPRESENTS BLACK EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT, COMMUNITY HISTORY, AND GENERATIONAL LEGACY. THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN CLEAR WE DO NOT WANT BURRIS TRANSFERRED TO AN OUTSIDE INTEREST. WE WANT IT TO SERVE THE PURPOSE OF INDEPENDENT HEIGHTS. WE ARE ASKING HISD TO TRANSFER BURRUS TO HIRC OR GIVE HIRC THE COMMUNITY AND THE COMMUNITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE IT. THIS COMMUNITY HAS LOST SO MUCH, AND YOUR COMPASSION WILL GIVE IT THE ABILITY TO PRESERVE ITS LEGACY AND ITS FUTURE FOR [00:05:07] THOSE TO COME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. WE WILL NOW CONDUCT THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR THIS MEETING. PLEASE NOTE THAT WE WILL NOT CONDUCT THE HEARING FOR [INAUDIBLE] MATTHEW AS IT IS BEING RESCHEDULED. THE PURPOSE OF THE HOUSTON SCHOOL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD IS TO REPRESENT THE VISION AND VALUES OF THE COMMUNITY AND CONSISTENT WITH THAT, GOVERN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IN A MANNER THAT BEST ALLOWS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF ACADEMIC OUTCOMES FOR ALL STUDENTS WE SERVE. THE BOARD MUST BE ABLE TO DO ITS WORK OF GOVERNING, INCLUDING DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION MAKING, IN ORDERLY MEETINGS HELD UPON TO THE PUBLIC IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT WE EFFICIENTLY, IN ORDER TO ENSURE WE CAN EFFICIENTLY ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF OUR STUDENTS, ALLOW FOR NECESSARY DELIBERATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS TO OCCUR, GIVE ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE AND OBSERVE THE SCHOOL BOARD'S MEETINGS, AND PROVIDE APPROPRIATE TRANSLATION SERVICES FOR NON-ENGLISH SPEAKERS, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON ISD COMMUNITY. WE WILL ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWING RULES AND NORMS. PUBLIC COMMENT DURING SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS WILL ONLY BE AVAILABLE TO THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK PRIOR TO THE MEETING TIME. PER CURRENT PROTOCOL, VERBAL AND OTHER DISRUPTIONS BY PERSONS DURING THE 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. SEATING IN THE BOARDROOM IS AVAILABLE ON A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS FOR ALL PERSONS, INCLUDING THOSE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMENT. OVERFLOW SEATING MAY BE AVAILABLE ALSO ON A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS. SPEAKERS TIME WILL BE LIMITED IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOARD POLICY. SPEAKERS SHOULD STAY ON TOPIC AND REFRAIN FROM NAMING INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY STUDENTS, AS THEIR IDENTITY IS PROTECTED UNDER LAW. HOWEVER, PARENTS MAY NAME THEIR OWN CHILD. SPEAKERS SHOULD IN THEIR COMMENTS PROMPTLY. WHEN THE TIME IS EXPIRED AND THE TIMER RINGS. THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL BEGIN WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND HISD STUDENTS AND PARENTS. A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD MAY DO SO IN PERSON OR BY LIVE VIDEO VIA ZOOM. FOR EITHER METHOD, A PERSON WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD MUST REGISTER WITH THE BOARD SERVICE DEPARTMENT BY 12 P.M.. THE DAY BEFORE THE MEETING. ANY SUPPORTING INFORMATION REGARDING THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS. CONCERNS SHALL BE FILED WITH THE BOARD SERVICES BY 12 P.M. THE DAY BEFORE THE MEETING. FURTHER DETAILS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR REGISTERING TO SPEAK ARE AVAILABLE AT OUR WEBSITE. THE AGENDA PACKET FOR THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AND THE BOARD MEETING MAY BE VIEWED ON OUR WEBSITE. A RECORDING OF THE MEETING WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE. NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS WITH A HEARING COMMITTEE. THAT IS NOT A QUORUM OF THE BOARD. THE ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA MAY BE TAKEN IN ANY ORDER. NO AGENDA IN DISTRICT BUSINESS WILL BE DISCUSSED EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW, AND ANY ACTION WILL OCCUR IN THE ROOM OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. IT IS INTENDED THE DISTRICT TO HAVE IN THE MEETING WILL HAVE A QUORUM PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THIS LOCATION. THE ABOVE LOCATION WILL BE EQUIPPED WITH VIDEO, EQUIPPED WITH CONFERENCE EQUIPMENT. WE HAVE. OUR EARLIER SPEAKER ENTERED THE ROOM AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE SPEAKER, PLEASE. YES, MA'AM. I THOUGHT MILES WAS GOING TO BE HERE AS MY TIME STARTED. OKAY. HELLO? YES, MA'AM. WE'RE READY. THANK YOU. OKAY. BOARD AND MILES. I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE DISTRICT EXECUTIVES AND A PRINCIPAL THAT WOULD TARGET A TEACHER AND FIRE THEM FOR REPORTING KIDS, FOR BEING ABUSED BY ADULTS IN THE MEYERLAND GYM. THE DEPARTMENT HEAD TOLD ME TO AVOID AND IGNORE THE ABUSE BECAUSE HE'S A COWARD. THE COACH NEXT TO HIM CALLS KIDS FAT, GAY, AND STUPID OPENLY UNTIL THEY CRY IN FRONT OF THEIR PEERS. ALL HAS BEEN REPORTED AND DOCUMENTED. HE ALSO PUTS KIDS IN THE SUN FOR AN HOUR IN 100 DEGREE TEMPERATURES, JUST FOR FORGETTING A UNIFORM. THE COACH ON THE END HAS ABUSED KIDS FOR 15 YEARS. EVERY FAMILY AT MARYLAND HAS A HORROR STORY ABOUT THE ABUSE SHE HAS INFLICTED ON THEIR CHILD. [00:10:06] SHE EVEN PUTS HER HANDS ON PEOPLE'S CHILDREN. NOTHING'S DONE. THE ADMINISTRATIVE TEAM KNOWS ABOUT IT AND COVERS IT UP. I WAS FIRED AFTER 30 YEARS IN THE DISTRICT BY HISD BECAUSE I THREATENED TO CALL CPS IN THE COPS IF THE ABUSE DID NOT STOP. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR DECISION TO BRING BACK A PRINCIPAL WITH NO CHARACTER, WHO VICTIM SHAMES CHILDREN AND PROTECTS THE ADULT ABUSERS. THE FAMILY DESERVES AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION. THANK YOU. ENJOY YOUR DAY. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING. PROCEDURES TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINE IN THE MANNER OF ADANNA BERRY. DOCKET NUMBER 194-LH-06-2026. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF ADANNA BERRY TEACHER. TRAVIS HIGH SCHOOL HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING REQUESTS 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 THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071. IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE TELL ME FOR THE RECORD, ADANNA BERRY IS PRESENT. MILES BRADSHAW. OF BRADSHAW LAW FIRM REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENT. CATOSHA WOODS HISD, GENERAL COUNSEL. IS ALSO PRESENT, MISS BERRY. DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE AN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? THANK YOU MA'AM. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER TO ACCEPT, REJECT OR CHANGE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND PROPOSALS 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. IF WE REJECT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OR MAKE ANY CHANGES, WE MUST STATE THE REASON IN LEGAL BASIS IN WRITING. MR. BRADSHAW, YOU WILL PROCEED. FIRST, YOU WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MISS BARRY. MR. BRADSHAW, YOU MAY RECEIVE PART OF YOUR 10 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MISS BERRY. BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS. MR. BRADSHAW, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME IN MAKING YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD? I'LL DIVIDE IT. 6 MINUTES AND 4 MINUTES. YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. BRADSHAW. YOU MAY COME ON UP AND BEGIN. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND. AND GOOD EVENING TO BOARD MEMBERS, MISS BERRY AND MISS MISS WOODS. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATION AS THEIR COUNSEL. WE ARE ASKING THE BOARD TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER, WHICH SUPPORTED THE NON-RENEWAL OF MISS BERRY'S CONTRACT. I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE MY MY PARTY REPRESENTATIVE HERE WITH ME TODAY, MISS GIULIANA INGRAM. MISS INGRAM IS THE ONE OF THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS AT CHAVEZ HIGH SCHOOL. AND OUR PRINCIPAL THERE WHO'S UNABLE TO BE HERE AT THIS MOMENT IS MISS CAROL GALINDO, THE THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION, WHICH YOU HAVE, OF COURSE, IN THE RECORD, IT WAS VERY THOROUGH. AND SHE RULED IN FAVOR OF THE DISTRICT ON ALL COUNTS. THE AND FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE DISTRICT ON BOTH OF THE 2 STATED NON-RENEWAL REASONS. THOSE 2 REASONS WERE ESSENTIALLY INSTRUCTIONAL PERFORMANCE AND SOME COMPLIANCE ISSUES. TO PUT IT IN PLAIN TERMS, UNDER THE POLICY, THE FIRST NON-RENEWAL REASON WAS DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT IN OBSERVATION REPORTS, APPRAISALS, EVALUATIONS, MEMOS, AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS. THE SECOND NON-RENEWAL REASON WAS INCOMPETENCY OR INEFFICIENCY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO FOR YOU IS TO KIND OF HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAD AT THE HEARING, SO YOU UNDERSTAND THE CASE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON HERE TODAY. AND KEEP IN MIND MS. BERRY HAS BEEN AN ENGLISH TEACHER FOR HISD. AND THIS PAST SCHOOL YEAR, IN 25-26, SHE STARTED AT HARTMAN MIDDLE SCHOOL AND SHE WAS THERE ABOUT 2 AND A HALF MONTHS. [00:15:06] SHE WAS TRANSFERRED BASED ON LEVELING, I GUESS. AND THERE WAS A VACANCY AT CHAVEZ HIGH SCHOOL IN THE ENGLISH DEPARTMENT. SO SHE WAS TRANSFERRED FOR THE NEXT 8 MONTHS OF THE SCHOOL YEAR TO CHAVEZ HIGH SCHOOL. AND SO ULTIMATELY, THAT'S WHY CHAVEZ HIGH SCHOOL BROUGHT FORWARD THE RECOMMENDATION THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE TRUTH IS THE EVIDENCE WAS PRETTY OVERWHELMING AT BOTH CAMPUSES. EVEN IN THE 2 AND A HALF MONTHS. MS. BERRY WAS AT HARTMAN. INSTRUCTIONALLY HER SPOT OBSERVATIONS WHICH I KNOW YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH. OF COURSE, THE PROFICIENT STANDARD IS A 10.5, RIGHT? AT HARTMAN, THESE WERE HER SPOTS DURING THE 2 AND A HALF MONTHS SHE WAS THERE. 05, 4, 7, 8 AND A HALF. 8AND A HALF. 9. 8 AND A HALF. NONE OF THEM PROFICIENT. SHE WAS EVEN OFFERED AND PUT ON A COACHING PLAN WHILE SHE WAS AT HARTMAN. AND OF COURSE, IN OCTOBER, AROUND OCTOBER THE 20TH IS WHEN SHE WAS TRANSFERRED OVER TO CHAVEZ. AT CHAVEZ THE SPOT STORES WERE A LITTLE BETTER. BUT STILL, OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT EIGHT MONTHS, HER AVERAGE WAS 8.93, WELL BELOW THE PROFICIENT STANDARD OF 10.5. IN ADDITION TO THAT, SORT OF. THE PROOF IN THE PUDDING WAS THE STAAR PASSAGE RATE FOR MISS BERRY'S 9TH GRADE ENGLISH CLASS. SHE TAUGHT ENGLISH ONE WITH A TEAM OF OTHER TEACHERS AND FINDING A FACT NUMBER 30, IF YOU CARE TO READ IT, NOTES THAT THE STAAR PASS RATE FOR MISS BERRY'S STUDENTS WAS 50.44%, AND THE OTHER TEACHERS AMONG HER TEAM. THEIR PASSAGE RATE ON THE STAR WAS 92% TO 98%. THE COMPLIANCE ISSUES THAT WERE PUT FORTH IN SUPPORT OF THE NON-RENEWAL. THE BIGGEST ONE, AND IT'S FRANKLY A VERY BIG ONE, IN MY OPINION. IT'S WHY WE'RE ALL HERE. IT'S WHY TEACHERS TEACH AND PRINCIPALS AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS DO THEIR JOBS, AND THAT IS TO GIVE STUDENTS GRADES AND LET THEM KNOW HOW THEY'RE DOING. MISS BERRY REPEATEDLY AT BOTH CAMPUSES. SHE DID IT ONCE AT HARTMAN AND GOT WRITTEN UP FOR IT. SHE DIDN'T EVEN SAY WHAT SHE DID. SHE DID NOT TURN IN HER STUDENT GRADES. AND SHE DIDN'T DO HER PROGRESS REPORTS. SHE GOT WRITTEN UP AT HARTMAN FOR IT BACK IN SEPTEMBER. AND THEN WHEN SHE WENT TO CHAVEZ, SHE WAS WRITTEN UP 6 TIMES FOR NOT TURNING IN AND INPUTTING HER GRADES FOR HER STUDENTS. THEY HAVE A PROCEDURE. ALL CAMPUSES HAVE ONE. THEY REQUIRE 2 GRADES PER WEEK FOR EVERY STUDENT, SO THE KIDS CAN KNOW HOW THEY'RE DOING. THEY CAN ACCESS THEM ONLINE. THE PARENTS CAN LOOK AND SEE HOW THEY'RE DOING WHEN HER STUDENTS, YOU KNOW, PRESUMABLY WHEN THEY WOULD LOOK ONLINE, THEY WOULD FIND NOTHING FOR HER CLASS DURING THOSE TIME PERIODS. SO THAT WAS A REALLY BIG COMPLIANCE ISSUE. AND IT JUST DIDN'T GET BETTER. IT WAS FROM DECEMBER THROUGH MARCH AT CHAVEZ. AND THEN ANOTHER MINOR THING WAS GIFTED AND TALENTED TRAINING THAT ALL TEACHERS HAVE TO GO THROUGH. SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE COMPLETED THAT IN DECEMBER. SHE I DON'T THINK THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL EVER GOT PROOF THAT SHE FINISHED IT, BUT I BELIEVE SHE DID. AND LATER, IN MARCH OF 2026. AND SHE GOT WRITTEN UP FOR THAT 3 TIMES BEFORE SHE EVER FINISHED IT. AND THAT WAS A SIMPLE ASK. I THINK OF ANY TEACHER TO FINISH THE G&T TRAINING. SO BOTTOM LINE IS THE CASE IS OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST MISS BARRY. MISS BERRY IS A VERY KIND PERSON. SHE'S A NICE LADY. I ENJOYED WORKING WITH HER ON THIS CASE. BUT HISD DESERVES BETTER IN THE CLASSROOM. AND FOR THAT REASON, WE ASK THAT YOU UPHOLD THE HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. MISS BERRY, YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. TO THE BOARD AND TO MR. BRADSHAW. THANK YOU, MISS INGRAM. I'LL JUST START OFF WITH THE GRADES. I THINK THERE'S AN EXHIBIT NUMBER, THE 2 PER WEEK GRADES WHICH EXHIBIT NUMBER 42. THEY ACTUALLY SAID THAT I FAILED TO SUBMIT GRADES. THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT THE TOTAL TRUTH ABOUT THAT. I HAVE HAD SOME DEFICIENCIES IN THE 2 GRADES PER WEEK. HOWEVER, WHEN THE NEXT WEEK CAME, I INCREASED MY GRADES. [00:20:01] SOMETIMES I MAY HAVE HAD 36 GRADES FOR THE 3 WEEKS, MAYBE 25 FOR THE, THE WHOLE TOTAL GRADING PERIOD. SO I THINK WHEN SHE EXPRESSED THAT NO GRADES, IT REALLY WASN'T EXPLAINED IN DETAIL. THERE WERE SOME TIMES THAT I DID HAVE THE 2 GRADES PER WEEK. AND WHEN I DID NOT, I DID INCREASE THOSE. THE SECOND THING THAT I THINK I GOT A MEMO ABOUT THAT WAS REALLY CONCERNING WAS THE INTERNALIZATION OF THE SLIDE DECKS. I DON'T THINK HE REALLY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. HOWEVER WE STARTED WITH 4 TEACHERS ON THE INTERNALIZATION OF SLIDE DECKS AND MY CONCERN THAT I DID EXPRESS TO MISS INGRAM WAS IN YOUR BOARD POLICY, IT SAYS THAT THE CURRICULUM NEEDS TO BE ALIGNED TO YOUR TEKS AND YOUR ELO. AND A LOT OF TIMES WHEN MYSELF AND EVEN THE TEAM I'LL JUST TALK ABOUT MYSELF WHEN WE DID THE SLIDE DECK, SOMETIMES WE HAD TO LIKE DISSECT THEM, YOU KNOW, MAKE A WHOLE NEW LESSON PLAN. AND IT WAS REQUIRED THAT I TURN THOSE IN SEVEN DAYS IN ADVANCE EACH WEEK, A WEEK IN ADVANCE. AND SOMETIMES I ONLY TURN IT IN 3 DAYS IN ADVANCE DUE TO MAKING SURE THAT IT WAS ALIGNED. AND I CAN PRESENT. WELL THE SECOND THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS IS SOME OF MY SPOT CHECKS. I CAN'T DO THEM ALL BECAUSE THERE'S LIKE 600 PAGES OF THAT. SO I WILL ADDRESS IT THIS WAY. I WAS PUT ON A PLAN AT HARTMAN AND IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME AT YOUR BOARD POLICY SAYS THAT YOU WILL HIRE QUALITY TEACHERS, TRAIN THEM AND RETAIN WHAT REALLY STANDS OUT TO ME IS THAT YOU SAID TRAIN, AND I DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM BEING PUT ON A PROFESSIONAL PLAN IF I NEEDED HELP. I, YOU KNOW, I'M OPEN TO THAT. HOWEVER THE POSITION I'M IN, I DIDN'T GET TO FINISH THE PLAN. SO I FEEL THAT IF SOMEBODY CREATED A PLAN AND HAD THAT MUCH I GUESS, INSIGHT THAT I COULD IMPROVE, I SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CHANCE TO FINISH THE PLAN. HOWEVER, I DIDN'T GET THAT I WAS ACTUALLY TRANSFERRED TO THE ISS ROOM BEFORE I WAS MOVED TO CHAVEZ. SOME OF THE DATES ON THE GRADING IS NOT CORRECT. THE 1ST GRADING CYCLE I WAS MADE THE ISS TEACHER ON THE 5TH WEEK OF SCHOOL WHICH IS SOMETIME I GUESS GOING INTO THE MIDDLE OF SEPTEMBER AND I WAS MADE THE ISS TEACHER IN MY CLASS WAS GIVEN TO ANOTHER TEACHER WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR TURNING IN THE FINAL GRADES FOR THE FIRST 6 WEEKS DUE TO THE FACT THAT I WAS CHANGED IN POSITION. I WASN'T THE TEACHER OF RECORD FOR THAT CLASS ANYMORE. I WAS REMOVED FROM THAT CLASS AND MADE THE ISS TEACHER SO THAT THAT WAS KIND OF LIKE A LITTLE MISCONCEPTION OF THAT. THE LAST THING I THINK THAT HE SAID WAS REALLY. KIND OF DEVASTATING. OWES MY SPOT CHECKS. I ALWAYS GOT 8S AND 5, EVEN 0S. AND I WILL SAY THIS IN NES, THERE'S NO WAY A TEACHER CAN GET A 0 UNLESS SHE'S SITTING DOWN AT A DESK. AND THERE'S NO, NO WAY IN ANY DISTRICT, YOU PROBABLY CAN SIT DOWN AT A DESK THESE DAYS WITH THE KIDS, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE THEM ENGAGED THE WHOLE PERIOD. THAT IS THE LESSON CYCLE. THAT'S THE NES CYCLE. HOWEVER I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THIS EXHIBIT, BUT THERE'S AN EXHIBIT IN THERE. I THINK IT'S LIKE NUMBER 31. IT'S A NEWSLETTER THAT MISS INGRAM GAVE ME AND SHE DIDN'T GIVE IT TO ME EVERY MONTH. BUT IN FEBRUARY OF 2026, SHE BROUGHT ME A MEMORANDUM WHICH SAID THAT I WAS GOING TO BE FIRED OR RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED FOR TERMINATION FROM MISS IMELDA LAGUARDIA AND MR.. OH, I THINK IT'S INDO MARTINEZ. IF I'M SAYING HIS NAME WRONG, I APOLOGIZE. HOWEVER, IN THAT SAME MONTH, SHE GAVE ME A NEWSLETTER WHICH SAID, AND I'LL JUST READ IT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THAT. BUT IT JUST SAYS ACROSS ALL OBSERVATIONS, LOLDOL WAS ALIGNED TO STANDARDS A.B. PARTNER PROTOCOLS WITH ACCOMMODATIONS FOR ODD NUMBERED GROUPS. 3. EXEMPLARS WERE POSTED AND SHOWN. THE TEACHER AND THE STUDENTS WERE ANNOTATING. MRS STRATEGIES WERE IMPLEMENTED TURNING TALK WHITEBOARD, ORAL CORAL SCAFFOLDS, ACES AND CENTER STEMS, [00:25:01] AND GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS AND MONITORING WITH FEEDBACK AND TIME BY THE TEACHER WERE USED. SHE ALSO GAVE ME A PRAISE WHICH SAYS, WHAT ARE YOUR STRENGTHS WERE BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT. I REDIRECT MISBEHAVIOR. MOST STUDENTS WERE NOT IN OR WERE IN SEATED COMPLIANCE, AND ALL STUDENTS WERE ON TEST. TURNING, TALKING WHITEBOARDS OR CORPORATE SHARE CONSISTENTLY USED. AND THAT PARTICULAR WEEK, THE KIDS HAD 77.58% ON THEIR DSA AND 78.17% ON THEIR CA.3. HOWEVER, I RECEIVED A MEMO FOR TERMINATION IN THAT SAME MONTH, WHICH I DID NOT SIGN, AND THE REASON THAT I DIDN'T SIGN IT IS BECAUSE MISS EMELDA AND MR. MARTINEZ HAD NOT SIGNED THAT, AND I HAD RECEIVED MEMOS BEFORE, AND IT CAME IN INTO DEPARTMENTAL MAIL. AND BECAUSE THERE WERE NO SIGNATURES, I DIDN'T SIGN IT. AND THEN I RECEIVED THIS ON MY SPOT CHECKS IN FEBRUARY. I GOT 0S AND 5S, BUT I GOT THIS. AND THIS IS ONE OF YOUR EXHIBITS. ACCORDING TO THE THE OTHER ONE THAT HE SAID, I HAVE MANY SPOT CHECKS. I'M JUST DEALING WITH CHAVEZ BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE RECOMMENDING THIS. I THINK THE OVERALL APPRAISE ON THIS SHEET WAS REALLY I GUESS IT MADE ME FEEL A LITTLE BETTER FROM THE, THE PREVIOUS MONTHS AND ON HERE, SHE SAID THAT AVERAGE OF ALL SPOTS CONDUCTED FOR THE PERIOD, THAT PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 26TH. I DON'T KNOW WHAT LEARNING CYCLE THAT IS, BUT WAS 7, 8, 9 AND 8.4. HOWEVER, I REREAD IT AGAIN ACROSS THE OBSERVATION DOL AND ELO WERE ALIGNED IN STANDARDS A AND B PARTNER PROTOCOLS WITH ACCOMMODATIONS AND ALSO A GROUP EXEMPLARS. POST IS SHOWN TEACHER AND STUDENT ADAPTATION STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTED DURING THE TALK, WHITEBOARD OR CORE, AND IN NO WAY THAT'S A 5 OR 8. SHE SAID IT HERSELF RIGHT HERE. BUT ANYWAYS, LET'S GO TO GIFTED AND TALENTED. OH I'M SORRY, THE COURSES, THE HISD COURSES I HAD 5 DIFFERENT POSITIONS SINCE CULLEN. I HAD A VERY SUCCESSFUL YEAR AT CULLEN AND NES. I STARTED OFF THE VERY FIRST YEAR OF NES, AND CULLEN WAS THE PRIDE OF THE SOUTH IN READING. AND I WAS ONE OF THOSE TEACHERS AFTER THEY MADE THE MILITARY SCHOOL, I WAS EVEN NOT JUST ME, THE WHOLE TEAM, BUT MR. TRAN, WHO WAS THE SOUTH DIVISION, CAME AND EVEN BRAGGED AND SAID, MISS BERRY, THE SCORES WERE REALLY GOOD. IN EIGHTH GRADE, I WAS IN EIGHTH GRADE. HE PASSED OUT CANDY THAT DAY. EVERYBODY WAS REALLY PROUD. BUT AFTER THAT YEAR WAS OVER, I WAS MOVED TO AUTISM. RECOMMENDED BY MISS IMELDA. THEY WERE TRYING TO FIND A POSITION FOR ME BECAUSE THERE WAS A NEW PRINCIPAL. I WAS TRANSFERRED FROM ORTIZ TO STERLING, WHICH I WAS NOT A TEACHER THAT WHOLE ENTIRE YEAR. I WAS A SUPPORT STAFF. I DID ANYTHING THAT WAS AVAILABLE. AND THEN THE NEXT YEAR I WENT TO HARTMAN. I REALLY WILL SAY I START OFF AT HARTMAN. I REALLY ENJOYED WORKING. WORKING. MISS ZAVALA I WAS IN 7TH GRADE WHEN I WAS REMOVED FROM THAT CLASS. LET'S BE CLEAR ON THAT. I WASN'T REMOVED FROM THAT CLASS BECAUSE I WAS NOT TEACHING. I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS LOW ENROLLMENT AND THAT THERE WAS A TEACHER THAT HAD 2 PREP TIMES, AND THAT MISS ZAVALA HAD TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHICH TEACHER TO MOVE TO ANOTHER PLACE BECAUSE OF ENROLLMENT. AND I WAS CHOSEN. MY CLASS WAS GIVEN TO THE TEACHER THAT HAD 2 PREP TIMES AND I WAS REMOVED AFTER I WAS REMOVED, I DIDN'T GET TO FINISH MY PLAN, WHICH MISS LIGHTHEART HAD GIVEN ME, WHICH WE DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM. I, YOU KNOW, I WAS OPENED ON WITH THE. THANK YOU, MR. BRADSHAW. DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A REBUTTAL STATEMENT? I WILL BE VERY BRIEF. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE BOARD IN THE DECISION THE 2 PRIMARY CONCLUSIONS THAT SUPPORT THE CASE. AND THEY'RE NUMBERED NUMBERS 53 AND 54. IN YOUR BOARD PACKET, I BELIEVE THERE IT WOULD BE. PAGE 17. IT'S PAGE 16 OF THE RECOMMENDATION. THEY STATE AS FOLLOWS. FINDINGS OF FACT ESTABLISHED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT RESPONDENT WAS REPEATEDLY NOTIFIED IN WRITING OF SPECIFIC RECURRING DEFICIENCIES IN HER CLASSROOM [00:30:07] INSTRUCTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH GRADE ENTRY REQUIREMENTS, HER COMPLETION OF MANDATORY TRAINING AND HER SUBMISSION OF REQUIRED LESSON MATERIALS, AND THAT THESE DEFICIENCIES PERSISTED LARGELY WITHOUT CORRECTION FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE 25-26 SCHOOL YEAR, THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED NON-RENEWAL AND THE NUMBER 54 STATES THE SAME FINDINGS, TOGETHER WITH THE LARGELY BELOW PROFICIENT PATTERN OF FORMAL CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS AT BOTH CAMPUSES. THE COMPARATIVE STAAR ACHIEVEMENT DATA THAT WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER TOGETHER ESTABLISH, BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT RESPONDENT WAS INCOMPETENT OR INEFFICIENT. WE ASK THAT YOU UPHOLD THE HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS. IT IS NOW TIME FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS TO TAKE OUR DECISION ON ISSUES BEFORE US. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION AND WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO GO TO A CLOSED SESSION? THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD. EXCUSE ME. THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION ON CHAPTER 551 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CLOSE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, SUBSECTION 551.004 THROUGH 551.089. SHOULD BOARD FINAL ACTION, VOTE OR DECISION ON ANY MATTER CONSIDERED IN CLOSED SESSION BE REQUIRED? SUCH FINAL ACTION VOTER DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN AT THE OPEN MEETING COVERED BY THIS NOTICE. UPON THE RECONVENING OF THIS PUBLIC MEETING, OR AT A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD UPON NOTICE THEREOF, THE BOARD IS RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION AT 5:38 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2026. THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING TO THE MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION. THE TIME IS 5:43 P.M.. DO I HAVE A MOTION? AND A SECOND. DO I HAVE A MOTION? APOLOGIES. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE DECISION RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER. ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER. AND NON-RENEWAL OF BERRY'S ONE YEAR TERM CONTRACT FOR THE 26-27 SCHOOL YEAR. AND WE HAVE A 2ND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER DUFFY AND A SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER GOOSEN. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE. VOTING HAS CLOSED. THE MOTION PASSES. THE BOARD HAS VOTED 3, HAS VOTED 3, 4 AND 0 AGAINST THE MOTION. CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. THE 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 5:45 P.M.. PROCEDURE TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF SESHIA. THOMAS, DOCKET NUMBER 132-LH-04-2026. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER AND THE MATTER OF SESHIA THOMAS COUNCIL HARTMANN MIDDLE SCHOOL HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING. IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION DURING THIS HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY. UNDER THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071. IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE TELL ME. [00:35:03] FOR THE RECORD, JOHN F MCCORMICK MCCORMICK LAW FIRM REPRESENTING SESHIA THOMAS IS PRESENT. SESHIA THOMAS IS ALSO PRESENT. HANS GRAF LAW OFFICES OF HANS GRAF, REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION, IS PRESENT. CATOSHA WOODS HISD, GENERAL COUNSEL, IS ALSO PRESENT. MR. THOMAS, DO YOU WISH TO BE CONTINUE AN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? CLOSED. THANK YOU SIR. IF ANY PARTIES ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS HEARING, PLEASE LEAVE THE AUDITORIUM AT THIS TIME. THE BOARD WILL NOW RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION UNDER CHAPTER 551 OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE OPEN MEETINGS ACT SUBSECTIONS 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 VOTER DECISION SHALL BE TAKEN AT THE OPEN MEETING COVERED BY THIS NOTICE UPON THE RECONVENING OF THIS PUBLIC MEETING. THE BOARD IS READY TO VOTE. PLEASE OPEN THE AUDITORIUM DOORS AND BEGIN LIVE STREAMING. THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOW RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION. THE TIME IS 7:28 P.M.. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MY COMPUTER. YOU GOT IT. HERE, LET ME DO IT. SORRY. THERE YOU GO. I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER. ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, AND RENEW SESHIA THOMAS'S ONE YEAR CONTRACT FOR THE 26-27 SCHOOL YEAR. AND A SECOND. YES. WE HAVE A MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER DUFFY AND A SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER GOOSEN. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE. VOTING HAS CLOSED. THE MOTION PASSES. THE BOARD HAS VOTED 2 FOR AND 1 AGAINST THE MOTION. CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING OF THE BOARD VOTED. 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. THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 7:29 P.M.. PROCEDURE TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTOPHER HART, DOCKET NUMBER 157-LH-06-2026. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTOPHER HART, TEACHER LAMAR HIGH SCHOOL HEARINGS INVOLVING COMPLAINTS AGAINST DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE HELD IN CLOSED SESSION UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING REQUESTS AN OPEN HEARING. IF BOTH PARTIES REQUEST AN OPEN SESSION DURING THIS HEARING, THE BOARD MAY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH HIS ATTORNEY. UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071. [00:40:04] IF ANY BOARD MEMBER WISHES TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PLEASE TELL ME FOR THE RECORD, CHRISTOPHER HART IS PRESENT. ASHLEY YEE, HISD ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE ADMINISTRATION, IS PRESENT. PRESENT CATOSHA WOODS HISD GENERAL COUNSEL, IS ALSO PRESENT. MR. HART, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE AN OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION? THANK YOU SIR. THE BOARD IS NO, SORRY. THE ISSUES BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD ARE WHETHER TO ACCEPT, REJECT OR CHANGE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 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. IF WE REJECT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OR MAKE ANY CHANGES, WE MUST STATE THE REASON IN LEGAL BASIS IN WRITING. MISS YEE. 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. HART. MISS, YOU MAY RESERVE PART OF YOUR TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO MATTERS PRESENTED BY MR. HART. BOTH SIDES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE PRESENTATIONS. MISS YEE, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIVIDE YOUR TIME IN MAKING YOUR PRESENTATION? THANK YOU MA'AM. MISS YEE, YOU MAY BEGIN. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR. BOARD MEMBERS. JOINING ME TONIGHT I HAVE RITA GRAVES AND MISS GRAVES IS THE PRINCIPAL AT LAMAR HIGH SCHOOL. WE ARE HERE TONIGHT ASKING THE BOARD TO UPHOLD THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION TO NOT RENEW MR. HART'S TERM CONTRACT. THE RECORD HERE SHOWS A YEAR LONG PATTERN OF PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES IN PLANNING AND INSTRUCTION AND CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT, WITH THE SPOT SCORES FALLING BELOW THE DISTRICT'S PROFICIENT ONE STANDARD. DURING THE 25-26 SCHOOL YEAR, MR. HART SERVED AS THE SCIENCE TEACHER AT LAMAR HIGH SCHOOL AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL HOPE GOODSON WAS HIS ASSIGNED CERTIFIED APPRAISER. OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR, MR. HART RECEIVED 24 SPOT OBSERVATIONS AND A SPOT OBSERVATION IS A 10 TO 15 MINUTE CLASSROOM OBSERVATION BY A CERTIFIED APPRAISER. IT PROVIDES A SNAPSHOT IN TIME OF THE TEACHER'S INSTRUCTION AT A PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. A TEACHER MAY EARN UP TO 218 POINTS ON AN OBSERVATION, AND THE TOTAL POINTS THEN CORRESPOND TO A TIERED PROFICIENCY LEVEL. DISTRICT TEACHERS ARE EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN AT LEAST A PROFICIENT ONE STANDARD, WHICH REQUIRES A SCORE OF 10.5 POINTS. MISS GOODSON HAD TESTIFIED AT THE HEARING THAT SHE CONDUCTED 19 OF THE 24 SPOT OBSERVATIONS FOR MR. HART AND PROVIDED CONTEMPORANEOUS WRITTEN FEEDBACK. THOSE OBSERVATIONS ARE DOCUMENTED RECURRING DEFICIENCIES, SPECIFICALLY IN INSTRUCTIONAL PLANNING AND DELIVERY, WHICH INCLUDED HIM FAILING TO CONSISTENTLY IMPLEMENT GUIDED PRACTICE POSED AS EXEMPLARS, FAILING TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE SCAFFOLDING AND MONITORING STUDENTS UNDERSTANDING AND ENGAGEMENT, FAILING TO RETEACH CONCEPTS THAT WERE NECESSARY TO OUR STUDENTS, AND FAILING TO CONSISTENTLY IMPLEMENT MRS STRATEGIES. MISS GOODSON HAD TESTIFIED IN DETAIL ABOUT ALL 19 SPOT OBSERVATIONS, AND HER TESTIMONY APPEARS ON PAGES 49 TO 75 OF YOUR HEARING. TRANSCRIPT. AND THE SPOT OBSERVATIONS ARE INCLUDED IN PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT NUMBER SEVEN. PRINCIPAL GRAVES ALSO INDEPENDENTLY CONDUCTED 2 OF THE 24 SPOT OBSERVATIONS FOR MR. HART AND IDENTIFIED THE SAME TYPES OF DEFICIENCIES DOCUMENTED BY MISS GOODSON. MR. HART HAD RECEIVED SCORES OF 6 AND 9 POINTS ON THOSE OBSERVATIONS ON PRINCIPAL GRAVES IS OBSERVATIONS PLACING HIM IN THE PROGRESSING 1 AND PROGRESSING 2 RANGES, RESPECTIVELY. OF THE 24 SPOT OBSERVATIONS, 19 OF MR. HART'S SPOTS FELL BELOW THE PROFICIENT 1 PROFICIENCY LEVEL, AND THE COMPLETE SET OF SCORES APPEARED IN THE PETITIONER'S DEMONSTRATIVE IN EXHIBIT NUMBER 8 NOW AT THE MOY CONFERENCE OR THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR CONFERENCE. MR. HART'S AVERAGE SPOT SCORE WAS A 10.2, WHICH CORRESPONDED TO A PROGRESSING 2 PROFICIENCY LEVEL, AGAIN FALLING BELOW THE DISTRICT'S PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS. AND THE MOY CONFERENCE DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND ON PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 9. [00:45:06] NOW, BY THE END OF THE YEAR CONFERENCE, HIS SPOT AVERAGE HAD DECLINED TO A 9.07, AGAIN A PROGRESSING 2 LEVEL AND BELOW THE DISTRICT STANDARD. MISS GIBSON HAD ALSO RECORDED IN HER EVALUATOR NOTES THAT MR. HART WAS NOT FOLLOWING THE DISTRICT'S DESIGN CYCLE, THAT HE LACKED STRUCTURE IN HIS LESSONS, AND HE HAD NOT MADE SUFFICIENT PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE COACHING FEEDBACK THAT WAS GIVEN TO HIM, WHICH RESULTED IN HIM NOT DEMONSTRATING THE OVERALL INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS FOR A TEACHER HERE AT THIS DISTRICT. THE EOY CONFERENCE DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND IN PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 11. NOW, MR. HART'S SPOT SCORES HAD RANGED ANYWHERE BETWEEN 4 POINTS TO 14 POINTS, BUT HIS AVERAGE SPOT SCORE FOR THE ENTIRE 2025-2026 SCHOOL YEAR WAS A 8.29. AGAIN WITHIN THE PROGRESSING 2 RANGE AND BELOW THE PROFICIENT ONE STANDARD, THE CUMULATIVE SPOT OBSERVATION GRAPH APPEARS IN PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 9. FINALLY, IN THE APRIL 2ND, 2026 MEMORANDUM THAT MISS GOODSON HAD ISSUED TO MR. HART, SHE HAD IDENTIFIED 6 DISTINCT AREAS IN WHICH MR. HART CONTINUED TO FAIL TO IMPROVE DESPITE COACHING, FEEDBACK AND TRAINING THAT WAS PROVIDED TO HIM. THAT MEMORANDUM CAN BE FOUND IN PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 12. ALSO NOTEWORTHY WAS THAT MR. HART NEVER SUBMITTED ANY WRITTEN REBUTTAL TO ANY OF HIS SPOT OBSERVATIONS. HE NEVER REQUESTED FOR A SECOND APPRAISER, AND HE NEVER CHALLENGED THE ACCURACY OF ANY OF THE EVALUATIONS THROUGHOUT THE SCHOOL YEAR. THE DOCUMENTED DEFICIENCIES REMAINED CONSISTENT FROM THE START OF THE SCHOOL YEAR TO THE END, AND I ALSO WANTED TO TOUCH JUST BRIEFLY ON THE CONSISTENT SUPPORT THAT MR. HART HAD RECEIVED THROUGHOUT THE SCHOOL YEAR THAT IDENTIFIED THOSE DEFICIENCIES. HE RECEIVED WRITTEN FEEDBACK THROUGH SPOT OBSERVATIONS. HE RECEIVED SUPPORT THROUGH PLCS OR PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITY MEETINGS, WHERE TEACHERS MET INDIVIDUALLY WITH THEIR APPRAISERS TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS THEIR LESSONS. HE RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 10 SEPARATE 1 ON 1 SESSIONS WITH MISS GOODSON. HE RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM PD DAYS OR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DAYS, WHERE SESSIONS WERE FOCUSED ON IMPROVING AND REVIEWING THE ELEMENTS OF THE SPOT OBSERVATION RUBRIC, AND HE HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO SEEK OUT ADDITIONAL COACHING AND SUPPORT WITH HIS APPRAISERS SEPARATELY. THE TESTIMONIES REGARDING COACHING AND SUPPORT APPEARS IN PAGES 79 TO 83 OF YOUR TRANSCRIPT, AS WELL AS IN PAGES 213 TO 215. ULTIMATELY, THIS IS NOT A CASE BASED ON 1 SPOT OBSERVATION. IT IS NOT ONE DIFFICULT DAY THAT HE HAD IN THE CLASSROOM. IT IS NOT 1 ISOLATED MISTAKE. IT IS BASED ON REPEATED INSTRUCTIONAL DEFICIENCIES DOCUMENTED ACROSS MULTIPLE OBSERVATIONS AND IDENTIFIED NOT ONLY BY MISS GOODSON, BUT ALSO THROUGH COLLABORATION THROUGH PRINCIPAL GRAVES AND ANOTHER ADMINISTRATOR, RAYMOND KING. BOARD MEMBERS THIS WAS SIMPLY A NON-RENEWAL HEARING. THE ADMINISTRATION MUST ESTABLISH JUST 1 OF THE DFB REASONS BY THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. IN OTHER WORDS, IS IT MORE LIKELY THAN NOT ONE OF THE DFB REASONS OCCURRED? THE ADMINISTRATION MAINTAINS THAT THE RECORD ESTABLISHED MORE THAN 1 DFB REASON. ALTHOUGH THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION DID NOT ADOPT EVERY REASON ADVANCED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, SHE DID CONCLUDE THAT THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES DOCUMENTED IN MR. HART'S OBSERVATION REPORTS, HIS APPRAISALS, HIS EVALUATIONS, AND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUMS. FOR THESE REASONS, THE ADMINISTRATION RESPECTFULLY ASKED THIS BOARD TO UPHOLD THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO NOT RENEW MR. HART'S TERM CONTRACT BASED ON HIS PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. HART. YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, SIR. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS DOCTOR CHRISTOPHER HART. I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS AND THE ENTIRE EVALUATION RECORD BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER TO ADOPT [00:50:08] HER RECOMMENDATION TO NOT RENEW MY CONTRACT. HISD OFFERED 8 POLICY GROUNDS. 8. THE EXAMINER FOUND THAT THE DISTRICT PROVED 1. REASON 1 CONCERNING DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT IN OBSERVATION REPORTS, APPRAISALS, MEMORANDA OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS. SHE FOUND THAT THE DISTRICT DID NOT PROVE THE OTHER 7 GROUNDS. WHAT THE EXAMINERS FOUND SPECIFICALLY, THE EXAMINER FOUND THAT THE HISD DID NOT PROVE FAILURE TO FULFILL MY DUTIES, INCOMPETENCY OR INEFFICIENCY, INABILITY TO MAINTAIN DISCIPLINE, INSUBORDINATION OR FAILURE TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH BOARD POLICY. FAILURE TO MEET PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT STANDARDS OR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS REGARDING PROFESSIONAL IMPROVEMENT AND GROWTH. THOSE ARE FINDINGS ABOUT SEPARATE POLICY GROUNDS. I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO TREAT THEM AS A FINDING THAT EVERY OBSERVATION WAS FAVORABLE OR AS AN AUTOMATIC DEFEAT OF REASON ONE. I ASK YOU TO GIVE THEM THEIR PROPER WEIGHT AND CONSIDERING THE RECOMMENDATION AS A WHOLE. THE REMAINING GROUND. THE EXAMINERS FOUND THAT HISD PROVED. REASON 1 THROUGH DOCUMENTED INSTRUCTIONAL CONCERNS AND OBSERVATIONS. EVALUATIONS, A MEMORANDUM, AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS. I RECOGNIZE THAT FINDING. I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THE EXAMINERS CONCLUDED THAT ONE PROVED PRE-ESTABLISHED POLICY. REASON CAN SUPPORT NON-RENEWAL EVEN WHEN OTHER GROUNDS ARE NOT APPROVED. MY REQUEST IS THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER WHETHER ADOPTING THAT CONCLUSION AND THE RECOMMENDED RESULT IS JUSTIFIED BY THE RECORD. THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER ADMINISTRATORS COMMUNICATED CONCERNS. THEY DID. THE QUESTION FOR THE BOARD IS WHAT WEIGHT. THOSE CONCERNS DESERVE. IN LIGHT OF THE EXAMINER'S OTHER FINDINGS AND A FULL PATTERN OF EVALUATION EVIDENCE. THE EXAMINER FOUND THAT 19 OF 24 SPOT OBSERVATIONS FELL BELOW PROFICIENT ONE, AND THAT MY ANNUAL SPOT AVERAGE WAS 8.29. A PROGRESSION 2 RATING UNDER HISD RUBRIC. I DO NOT ASK YOU TO CONFUSE BELOW PROFICIENT WITH UNSATISFACTORY. ONLY 2 OF THE 24 OBSERVATIONS WERE RATED UNSATISFACTORY. BOTH FACTS APPEAR IN THE RECOMMENDATION. THE SAME RECOMMENDATION IDENTIFIES OFFICIAL SCORES OF 11, 10.5, 12, 10.5 AND 14 AT OR ABOVE THE REQUIRED PROFICIENCY LEVEL. IMPROVEMENT AFTER THE LOWEST SCORES. PARTICIPATION IN REQUIRED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND EFFORTS TO INCORPORATE FEEDBACK. THE RECORD IS MIXED. AND THE EXAMINER RECOGNIZED THAT MIX WHEN SHE FOUND THE [00:55:06] SEPARATE INCOMPETENCY OR INEFFICIENCY GROUND NOT PROVED. ON MARCH 19TH, 2 ADMINISTRATORS ASSIGNED SCORES OF 6 AND 14. ABOUT 90 MINUTES APART. DURING DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE SCHOOL DAY, THE EXAMINER CONSIDERED THAT 8 POINT DIFFERENCE BUT CONCLUDED IT DID NOT DEFEAT REASON 1. I ASKED THE BOARD TO CONSIDER ITS SIGNIFICANCE AND WEIGHING THE OVERALL RELIABILITY AND SERIOUSNESS OF THE EVALUATION RECORD, WHILE RECOGNIZING THE EXAMINER'S EXPLANATION. PRINCIPAL GRAVES. MAY 6TH CONFERENCE SUMMARY STATED THAT THE RECOMMENDED NONRENEWAL. BECAUSE MY INSTRUCTION DID NOT CONSISTENTLY MEET DISTRICT STANDARDS, IT CITED 19 OF 24 OBSERVATIONS BELOW PROFICIENT. THAT MEMORANDUM CONCERNS INSTRUCTIONAL PERFORMANCE AND IS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SUBJECT OF REASON 1. I AM NOT ARGUING THAT REASON 1 WAS ADDED LATER. I ASKED THE BOARD TO ASSESS THAT CONTEMPORANEOUS EXPLANATION ALONGSIDE THE OBSERVATION RECORDS AND EXAMINER'S FINDINGS. THE MEMORANDUM DOES NOT STATE THE OTHER POLICY GROUNDS LATER LISTED IN THE FORMAL NOTICE. THAT IS A POINT ABOUT WHAT THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT SAYS, NOT PROOF THAT THOSE OTHER GROUNDS WERE CREATED AFTERWARD. I HAVE MORE THAN 20 YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE HOLDING A PHD IN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCE AND HAVE SERVED AS AN IRB EXAMINER. I DO NOT SUGGEST THAT EXPERIENCE PLACES ME BEYOND EVALUATION. I ASKED FOR A DECISION THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE ENTIRE RECORD. INCLUDING THE FINDING FAVORABLE TO ME AND THE DOCUMENTED AREAS REQUIRING IMPROVEMENT. THE BOARD MAY CONSIDER EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION AND THE HEARING RECORD, AND MAY REACH ITS OWN LEGAL CONCLUSIONS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF TEXAS LAW. I ASK YOU TO PRESERVE THE EXAMINER'S FINDINGS THAT 7 GROUNDS WERE NOT PROVED, AND CONSIDER WHETHER THE CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDED OUTCOME OF REASON 1 SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN VIEW OF THE FULL RECORD. I UNDERSTAND THAT 1 TRUE POLICY GROUND MAY LEGALLY SUFFICE. I ASK YOU TO EXERCISE YOUR JUDGMENT. ON THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS CASE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE BOARD TO DECIDE TO DECLINE THE RECOMMENDATION, THE RECOMMENDED NON-RENEWAL, AND RENEW MY CONTRACT. IF THE BOARD REACHES A DIFFERENT DECISION, I ASK THAT ITS WRITTEN DECISION ACCURATELY DISTINGUISHED THE 1 PROVED GROUND FROM THE 7 GROUNDS THE EXAMINER FOUND UNPROVED AND EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR ANY CHANGE IT MAKES TO THE EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OR CONCLUSION. I'M ASKING THAT THE FINAL DECISION REFLECT A RECORD AS A WHOLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU, MR. HART. MISS YEE, DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A REBUTTAL STATEMENT? I'D LIKE TO BE VERY BRIEF, BUT MAKE VERY CLEAR THAT THE DISTRICT IS REQUIRED TO ONLY PROVE 1 DFB THE REASONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A NON-RENEWAL HEARING. AND THIS IS ALSO ESTABLISHED IN THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION AND OUR CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. [01:00:04] SPECIFICALLY, ON PAGE 45 IT STATES UNDER SECTION B, BURDEN OF PROOF AND STANDARD OF REVIEW. NUMBER 4 THAT PURSUANT TO TEXAS EDUCATION CODE SECTION 21.256.H. AT THIS HEARING, THE PETITIONER HISD MUST PROVE BY PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT MR. CHRISTOPHER HART VIOLATED AT LEAST 1 OF THE ALLEGATIONS ALLEGED AGAINST HIM IN ORDER TO NOT RENEW HIS CONTRACT. SHE ALSO STATES IN THE FOLLOWING SECTION IN SECTION C GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS IN NUMBER 08, IN ORDER TO NOT RENEW A TEACHER'S CONTRACT, THE DISTRICT DOES NOT HAVE TO SATISFY THE MORE ONEROUS GOOD CAUSE THRESHOLD, BUT ONLY THE EXISTENCE OF ONE VIOLATION OF A PRE-ESTABLISHED REASON FOR NON-RENEWAL, AND ALSO CITES PRECEDENT FROM PRIOR COMMISSIONERS DECISIONS IN KENNER V MORGAN ISD. ALSO IN KIRBY V COLLEGE STATION ISD. THE MERITS OF THIS CASE, SPECIFICALLY THE PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES WERE ESTABLISHED AND TRIED DURING THE HEARING BEFORE THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER. AND WE ARE NOT HERE TODAY TO RELITIGATE NOR REWEIGH THE EVIDENCE FROM THE HEARING. FOR THESE REASONS, AGAIN, THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD ASK THAT YOU UPHOLD THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION TO NOT RENEW MR. HART'S TERM CONTRACT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MISS YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES? THE PARTIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATIONS. IT'S NOW TIME FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE OUR DECISIONS ON ISSUES BEFORE US. DOES ANYONE NEED TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION DISCUSSION OR COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION? DO I HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM BOARD MEMBER DUFFY AND A SECOND FROM BOARD MEMBER GOOSEN. ARE THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS? PLEASE VOTE. OH. I'M SORRY. EXCUSE ME. PLEASE READ THE MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE DECISION AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER. ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDED BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER, EXAMINER AND NON RENEW CHRISTOPHER HART'S ONE YEAR TERM CONTRACT FOR THE 2026-2027 SCHOOL YEAR. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WE HAVE BOARD MEMBER, A MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER DUFFY AND A SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER GOOSEN. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE. THE VOTING IS CLOSED. THE MOTION PASSES. THE BOARD HAS VOTED 3-4-0 AGAINST THE MOTION. A LETTER NOTIFYING BOTH PARTIES OF THE ACTIONS OF THE BOARD SHALL BE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BOARD RELATIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AND THIS HEARING IS CONCLUDED AT 7:54 P.M.. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.