ࡱ> DFC 5bjbj 4H-77777KKKKg4K0vvv:<<<<<<iJ<7vvvvv<77Qv77:v:3R`K&g0:"7,vvvvvvv<<vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv : #128-R10-1290-- DOCKET NO. 128-R10-1290 LINDA CHAFFIN+BEFORE THE STATE + + V.+COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION + LOS FRESNOS INDEPENDENT+ SCHOOL DISTRICT+THE STATE OF TEXAS DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER Statement of the Case Petitioner, Linda Chaffin, appeals the decision of the board of trustees of the Los Fresnos Independent School District, Respondent, denying her grievance that mandating her attendance at small group planning sessions three daysper week during her planning and preparation period throughout the fall semester of the 1990-91 school year violates Tex. Educ. Code +13.902. Debra Ravel is the Hearing Officer appointed by the State Commissioner of Education. The research and writing assistance of Mary Ann Bashour, Law Clerk, Division of Hearings and Appeals, is gratefully acknowledged. Petitioner is represented by Lonnie F. Hollingsworth, Jr., Attorney at Law, Austin, Texas. Respondent is represented by Elizabeth G. Neally, Attorney at Law, Brownsville, Texas. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, this Proposal for Decision is based on consideration of Joint Stipulations of Fact, Motions for Summary Judgment, and Responses to Motions for Summary Judgment. It is here held that in denying Petitioner's grievance, Respondent's board of trustees abused its discretion because its administration violated Tex. Educ. Code +13.092 in mandating Petitioner's attendance at small group planning sessions during her planning and preparation period. On July 29, 1991, the Hearing Officer issued a Proposal for Decision recommending that Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied and that Petitioner Motion for Summary Judgment and her appeal be granted. No exceptions to the Proposal for Decision were filed. Findings of Fact After due consideration of the evidence and matters officially noticed, in my capacity as State Commissioner of Education, I make the following Findings of Fact: 1. Petitioner, Linda Chaffin, was at all times pertinent to this appeal a ˿Ƶ certified, fully qualified and competent teacher employed by Respondent, Los Fresnos Independent School District. (Joint Stip. 1). 2. Respondent was at all pertinent times a political subdivision of the State of Texas, organized pursuant to law, and charged with the responsibility for operating and maintaining a public school system within its geographical boundaries. (Joint Stip. 2). 3. Respondent' administration, through its superintendent, required that Petitioner and other teachers attend small group planning meetings during their planning and preparation period for the purpose of providing group guidance with regard to planning and preparation for the new Open Court Reading Program and, further, to allow the teachers to plan a uniform system of teaching. (Joint Stip. 4). 4. The group planning meetings occurred three days per week throughout the first semester of the 1990-91 school year. (Joint Stip. 5). 5. Respondent's superintendent responded to Petitioner's Level II grievance by letter dated October 29, 1990, stating his decision that mandating Petitioner's attendance at small group planning sessions during her planning and preparation period does not violate any state law, ˿Ƶ Administrative procedure or local board policy. (Joint Stip. 3; Joint Ex. A). 6. On November 12, 1990, Respondent's board of trustees voted unanimously to uphold the superintendent's decision to deny Petitioner's grievance and to continue mandated group planning sessions from which action Petitioner timely perfected this appeal to the Commissioner of Education. (Admitted, Res. Ans., Ex.; Record). 7. While the mandatory small group planning meetings are no longer required of Petitioner, Respondent has reserved the right to require similar meetings for other programs in the future. (Joint Stip. 6). 8. W. N. Kirby, ˿Ƶ, Texas Public Education Handbook - Selected Public Education Laws, Rules and Regulations, interprets Tex. Educ. Code +13.902 as providing teacher with an uninterrupted 45-minute duty-free planning and preparation period. (Official Notice). Discussion The sole issue presented is whether or not Respondent's board of trustees acted unlawfully in upholding the requirement that Petitioner attend small group meetings during her planning and preparation period three days per week during the fall semester of the 1990-91 school year. Petitioner contends a teacher's planning and preparation period is duty-free while Respondent maintains its administration can mandate participation in group sessions provided they are for planning and preparation. Resolution of this appeal requires interpretation of Tex. Educ. Code +13.902 which provides, in its entirety: +13.902. Planning and Preparation Time Each teacher actively engaged in the instruction of children shall have at least one period of not less than 45 minutes within the seven-hour school day for parent-teacher conferences, reviewing students' homework, and planning and preparation. During that time, a teacher may not be required to participate in any other activity. State Board of Education regulation, 19 TAC +145.44(a), virtually mirrors the language used in Tex. Educ. Code +13.902 and provides, in its entirety: +145.44(a) Preparation and Planning Time Each teacher actively engaged in the instruction of children in the public schools of Texas shall have at least one period of 45 consecutive minutes free from supervision of students within the scheduled school day for parent-teacher conferences, reviewing students' homework, and planning and preparation. During that time, a teacher shall not be required to participate in any other activity. Such 45-minute period must be provided in its entirety. The Commissioner of Education has previously Addressed and resolved the issue presented in the instant appeal. Strater v. Houston I.S.D., No. 129-R8-685 (Comm'r Educ., July 1986). In Strater, teachers were also required to attend meetings during their planning and preparation periods. According to the district's superintendent, the time of the meetings was determined by a majority of the faculty on the Petitioner's campus. The purpose of the meetings was to review the campus action plan, review bilingual guidelines and procedures, and assist teachers in planning and preparing for instruction. Id. at 3. The Commissioner held the district violated Tex. Educ. Code +13.902 and explained his holding as follows: The statute supports Petitioner's position. The statute was enacted for the purpose of giving teachers time to engage in parent-teacher conferences, reviewing students' homework, and planning and preparation as the teacher, not the administration, deems best. The statute clearly relieves the teacher of any duty during this period of time and prohibits the district and its administration from requiring the teacher to engage in any other activity the administration determines to be useful and important. (Emphasis added). Id. at 12. Respondent attempts to distinguish the instant appeal from required in-service meetings in Strater, claiming The meetings in Strater were "general," with no "specific purpose," while the meetings Petitioner was required To attend were specifically intended to train teachers to make the best use of their time. (Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, at 2). Regardless of what subject is covered in a required meeting or what purpose it is intended to serve, "there is a difference between actually planning and preparing for future class periods and attending training concerning how to plan and prepare." Id. at 12. The Commissioner has also previously addressed the issue presented herein in W. N. Kirby, Tex. Educ. Agency, Texas Public Education Handbook - Selected Public Education Laws, Rules and Explanations, V-54 (October 1987). This Agency publication provides an interpretation of Tex. Educ. Code +13.902 for local districts which combines the duty-free lunch with the 45-minute uninterrupted planning period to give teachers a total of one hour and fifteen minutes duty-free each work day. 2 A thorough reconsideration of this issue prompted a review of Tex. Educ. Code +13.902's legislative history which failed to assist in determining whether the legislative intent was to make a teacher's planning and preparation period duty-free. H. J. of Tex., 68th Leg., 2nd C.S. (1984); S.J. of Tex. 68th Leg., 2nd C.S. (1984). Petitioner's position is, however, bolstered by the bill's caption, which provides, "AN ACT relating to prohibiting requirement of other activities during a teacher's planning and preparation period." Caption , H.B. 29, 68th Leg., 2nd C. Sess. +1 (June 5, 1984). A teacher's planning and preparation period is, therefore, for the use of the teacher as he or she sees fit, within the statutory boundaries, free from any duty mandated by the school district. 3 While this Decision holds that it is unlawful under Tex. Educ. Code +13.902 to mandate attendance at group sessions during teachers' planning and preparation periods, it should not be read to discourage voluntary participation at such sessions. Districts are, in fact, encouraged to offer teachers the opportunity to participate voluntarily in group sessions to assist both teachers and districts in complying with the newly required twenty hours per year for staff development training. See Act of June 7, 1991, H.B. 2885, +18(b), 72nd Leg., R.S. (amending Act of April 15, 1991, S.B. 351, Tex. Educ. Code +16.052, 72nd Leg., R.S.). In upholding its administration's action in mandating Petitioner's attendance at group sessions during her planning and preparation period, Respondent's board of trustees violated Tex. Educ. Code +13.902, and abused its discretion in denying Petitioner's grievance. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied and Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment and her appeal, in its entirety, should be granted. Conclusions of Law After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact, in my capacity as Hearing Officer, I make the following Conclusions of Law: 1. Respondent's board of trustees acted in violation of Tex. Educ. Code +13.902 by denying Petitioner's grievance and upholding the action of its administration which mandated Petitioner's participation in group planning sessions during her planning and preparation period throughout the first semester of the 1990-91 school year. 2. Respondent's board of trustees abused its discretion in denying Petitioner's grievance and upholding the action of its administration which mandated Petitioner's participation in group planning sessions during her planning and preparation period throughout the first semester of the 1990-91 school year. 3. There being no genuine issue of fact, Petitioner is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 4. Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment should be DENIED. 5. Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED. 6. Petitioner's appeal, in its entirety, should be GRANTED. O R D E R After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in my capacity as State Commissioner of Education, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment and appeal be, and are hereby, GRANTED. SIGNED AND ISSUED this _____ day of ________________, 19_____. ________________________________ LIONEL R. MENO COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION  +######$$!$"$W$X$$$$$$$$$%%A%C%c%d%|%}%%%%%%%(&)&q&r&&&&&&& ' '"'#'^'_'v'w'''''''(('(((T(U(_(`((((((())1)2)>)@)B)w)x)))h!QheY6H*h!Q&heY65B*\fHphq fheY6W,QSUy{` 7 e X [ : \gdeY6C4o0jVG~$T`gdeY65h 7mP[6H h5 gdeY6`gdeY6 T6 !}!!W""9##$$$d%%?&& 'w''U((2))**gdeY6)))))**)***c*e*g*******-+.+E+F+k+l+++++++++5,6,K,L,m,n,,,,,,,- -,---[-\---------..#.$.X.Y.o.p.......//x/y/////000000)1*1G1H1^1_11111h!QheY6H*h!QheY6_**l++L,,---.p..=///050I000H112j22213h3p3^gd!Q`gd!QgdeY61?2@2i2j2}2233%4&4445h!QheY6 p333333a4445I5V5w555gd!QgdeY6^gd!Q21h:peY6/ =!"#$% j 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH J`J E}Normal dCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List `^`` eY60 Normal (Web)ddd[$\$CJOJPJQJ^JaJPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] - H)15 " *p35!#8@0(  B S  ?ELSZ)0U[sz .5-(((((())*)G)H)^)_)))))?*@*i*j*}**++,,-@*@*i*j*}**++-O!/u4O!eY6E}v8!Q&--@-`@UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * Arial7.{ @CalibriA BCambria Math"qhs妷s&R&R!n0--2QHX $PeY62!xxMbrunettMbrunettOh+'0p   , 8 DPX`h MbrunettNormal Mbrunett1Microsoft Office Word@2~@Ph@U&՜.+,0 hp|  R-  Title  !"#$&'()*+,-./012456789:<=>?@ABERoot Entry F``G1Table%WordDocument4HSummaryInformation(3DocumentSummaryInformation8;CompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q