 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hellmann v. Union School District8/23/2005
ly held that "there is no requirement of evidence of actual harm" to meet the burden of demonstrating incompetency and inefficiency under Section 168.114.1(3). Beck, 793 S.W.2d at 418-19.
Ms. Hellmann also asserts that the Board failed to consider performance evaluations in violation of the Tenure Act. Section 168.114.2 of the Tenure Act provides:
In determining the professional competency of or efficiency of a permanent teacher, consideration should be given to regular and special evaluation reports prepared in accordance with the policy of the employing school district and to any written standards of performance which may have been adopted by the school board.
Although this statutory section provides that a board should consider evaluations when it determines competency or efficiency, the Tenure Act does not require a board to base its decision solely on these performance-based evaluations. Nevels v. Board of Education of the School District of Maplewood-Richmond Heights , 822 S.W.2d 898, 905 (Mo.App.E.D. 1991).
Here, the record reflects that the Board considered several performance evaluations as well as testimony from the supervisor who supervised and evaluated Ms. Hellmann in her daily duties as a special education teacher. Although the District admits that it failed to maintain some copies of Ms. Hellmann's past evaluations, Ms. Hellmann was permitted to testify regarding the content of missing evaluations. To that end, the Board heard testimony regarding many satisfactory evaluations and some exemplary evaluations.
The Board heard ample testimony that the accurate and timely completion of special education paperwork is inextricable from a special education teacher's "professional teaching duties." Indeed, we have previously held failure to comply with a district's paperwork requirements can support a finding of incompetency and inefficiency. See Nevels , 822 S.W.2d at 902-03 (evidence of physical education teacher's chronic record-keeping problems supported a finding of incompetency and inefficiency). As a result of this testimony, as well as virtually uncontradicted testimony detailing the deficiencies in Ms. Hellmann's paperwork, the record supports the Board's finding that, viewed in their totality, Ms. Hellmann's deficiencies rise to the level of incompetency, inefficiency and insubordination. Point denied.
In her third point on appeal, Ms. Hellmann asserts that the Board erred when it terminated her teaching contract because the written charges the Board provided Ms. Hellmann pursuant to Section 168.116.1 failed to identify the specific provisions of Board policy and State special education laws that she allegedly willfully and persistently violated. Specifically, Ms. Hellmann contends that Charges III and IV of the Statement of Charges fail to state "with particularity the grounds alleged to exist for termination" in violation of Section 168.116.1. In essence, Ms. Hellmann asserts that a failure to identify specific provisions of specific laws negates the effectiveness of the written charges required by Section 168.116.1.
In support of her contention, Ms. Hellmann cites Iven v. Hazelwood, supra, and Dameron v. Board of Education of Lebanon School District R-3 , 549 S.W.2d 671 (Mo.App.Spring.Dist. 1977). Although both cases construe Section 168.116.2's warning letter requirements, neither supports Ms. Hellmann's proposition that Section 168.116.1, which requires specificity of the written charges, mandates citation to specific provisions within state and federal special education laws.
In In Iven, we found that a board failed to comply with Sections 168.116.1 and .2 because the district's letter speci
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Missouri Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|