Case Study Analysis

Story of Diana McCroy

Erikamarie Burk

Erikamarie Burk EDL 607 School Law November 7, 2012 Case Study Analysis In the case of tenured teacher, Diana McCroy, there are many questions to consider when presenting analysis. McCroy had over seven years of poor evaluative results and problematic reports. After nearly 11 years of teaching, the majority of which in bad standing, the Board of Education in her district of Gaston voted for her termination. The question posed by this case is one of procedural due process. Each teacher is entitled to due process or the fundamental right to notice of charges and an opportunity to rebut the charges before a fair tribunal if life, liberty, or property rights are at stake. Was McCroys right to due process violated? In determining this complex and multi-faceted question, we must consider other questions and facts related to this case. First, let us discuss McCroys history of inadequate teaching and poor evaluations. McCroy began receiving inadequate evaluations from her superiors just 1.5 years after tenure and 4.5 years after her initial hiring. In spring of 1995, McCroys Principal placed her on a plan of assistance due to problems with favoritism, inappropriateness in class, and poor student evaluations and discipline. She did show some improvement in 1996. After her initial improvement, however, McCroy was again placed on a plan of assistance in 1997 due to poor use of instructional objectives, non-inclusion of objectives in lesson plans, poor class preparation, not sending in grades, and not meeting requirements for professional growth. Even though this was the second time McCroy was assessed negatively, she was not suspended or fired and, in fact, had the teachers union file a grievance against her principal for unfair targeting for close teaching observations. This seems a bit ridiculous due to

Erikamarie Burk EDL 607 School Law November 7, 2012 Case Study Analysis the fact that the prior observation was two full years prior to the issue in the grievance. It is my understanding that teachers are evaluated and observed much more often than this and it seems to an outside observer that the grievance was an angry response to a negative review for a second time. The following school year in 1998-99, McCroy again faced negative feelings from her superiors when she failed to follow procedure in a newly adopted teacher self-evaluation procedure. For two straight years McCroy did not initiate self-evaluation, meet with her principal, or complete necessary pieces of the evaluation. In 2000, after these 2 years of insubordination and incompletion of duties, McCroys principal evaluated her teaching again. McCroy was found to be insufficiently prepared for classes, was not teaching all aspects of activities, did not give proper teaching directions, and did not challenge students. Not only did the first evaluation of the year go poorly, but several follow up observations indicated no improvement. Six months later, in March of 2001, the Principal recommended that the Board of Education terminate McCroys employment. Not only was McCroy provided with adequate notice of deficiencies over the term of employment, she was repeatedly put on a plan of assistance. Although her first two negative evaluations and plans of assistance resulted in betterment of her behavior, the insubordination in terms of self-evaluation and then the clear disregard of poor evaluation are clear reasons for termination. It is a surprise to me that McCroy was not terminated long before her 11 years of service. After direct insubordination of the self-evaluation for two years, the Board should have

Erikamarie Burk EDL 607 School Law November 7, 2012 Case Study Analysis terminated McCroy. Instead, they gave many more chances for her to improve and change. The school absolutely provided adequate (in fact, too much) notice of deficiencies over the course of McCroys employment. For a tenured teacher, a written notice of termination is required and the teacher can request a hearing, which McCroy did. It was five months after her final evaluation (and many subsequent re-evaluations) that the Board gave notice to McCroy. Those were five months where she could have made a concerted effort to improve. According to Ohio Revised Code, contracts can be terminated with good and just cause. In McCroys termination letter, there are five causes for termination, not including her two year insubordination with regard to the self-evaluation. The School Administrators acted within their rights when they evaluated McCroy less than once per year; this is well out of range of unfair targeting for close teaching observations. After reading the brief description in the case, the Board was acting in good faith and adequately applied due process for McCroy. There is only one piece that McCroy has valid standing in and it is the timing of the due process. According to ORC, the maximum number of days after informing a teacher of termination to hold a hearing is 40 days. The Board cannot proceed with formal action to terminate until 10 days after the teacher gets the letter. The teacher has 10 days to request a hearing. The Board must schedule the hearing within thirty days from when the teacher requests a hearing and no hearing shall be held during summer vacation.

Erikamarie Burk EDL 607 School Law November 7, 2012 Case Study Analysis The letter was given to McCroy on March 21, 2001 and the hearing was May 31, 2001. The time span is 71 days. This means that the Board did not adhere to the timing of due process as laid out in the Ohio Revised Code. However, as we discussed in class, oftentimes the school is held blameless if they are found to have been acting in good faith, which I believe the Board in this case was. After giving much notice and many chances for improvement to McCroy, it would be surprising to hear that the termination was stopped due to duration of the affair. Because due process is such an ingrained right; however, the argument that the hearing was not held in a timely manner is a valid one for McCroys legal counsel. McCroy appealed her termination decision, saying that her constitutional rights were violated because the school terminated her in retaliation to the grievance she filed in 1997. This idea seems slightly preposterous because the school continued to evaluate McCroy after the grievance and maintained good will and expectation of improvement. If the termination was in retaliation for McCroys grievance, why did it take the Board 4 years to act? For that matter, why would the Principal have tried to get McCroy to follow the self-evaluation procedures and continually evaluated her in 2000 looking for improvement so as not to fire her? Not only that, but McCroys Principal when she filed the grievance was replaced by another administrator. This argument does not seem to hold much weight. It is very clear to me that McCroy was a less than average teacher from the start. Within 1.5 years of being tenured, McCroys evaluations were very poor. She showed small improvements over the 11 year career, but received increasingly poor ratings from her

Erikamarie Burk EDL 607 School Law November 7, 2012 Case Study Analysis principals over that time. Not only do I decide with the school board in this case, but I would have terminated McCroy upon her insubordination of self-evaluations. At that point, she had eight or nine years of teaching experience and had already had multiple negative evaluations. In my opinion, this oversight means eight years of students had already experienced a teacher who was unprepared, did not follow instructions, and was not a fit teacher. Although the Board may have been wary to fire McCroy after her grievance in case she suggest they fired her because of it in violation of her rights, I still believe that would have been a service to the three-more-years of student that had to endure her poor teaching. Not only was she a poor teacher, but the administration in the years prior to Principal Webb did a disservice to the students and parents of the school by not properly addressing McCroy.