WE’RE ZOOMING WITH THE DAWG AT 10:00 THIS MORNING! HOPE YOU CAN JOIN ME AND MY SPECIAL GUEST, SARAH ORMAN, CO-AUTHOR OF THE EDUCATOR’S GUIDE TO TEXAS SCHOOL LAW.
Yesterday I laid the foundation for today’s discussion of a recent Commissioner decision about a teacher’s use of force in the classroom. Of course before it went to the Commissioner, the case was heard by an IHE (Independent Hearing Examiner). The IHE, after hearing the testimony about the incident, concluded that “Crowley ISD sustained its burden of establishing good cause for the termination of the term contract of Carl Stoneham under Texas law for termination of his contract.” At the same time, the IHE expressed reservations:
The IHE reminds Crowley ISD that good math teachers are not easy to find, a single event does not have to define a person, and termination is not an exclusive remedy. Stoneham has already been out of the classroom for more than six months as a result of an event that lasted minutes. Perhaps another course would serve the district well.
Nope. The board did not choose another course. They voted to terminate Mr. Stoneham’s employment. Now the Commissioner has reversed that decision.
The incident began when Mr. Stoneham started class and noticed that someone was in the room who did not belong. He did not recognize this person, did not know if he was a student, and did not know why he was in the classroom. The teacher asked the person to identify himself, and the person refused. It turns out this person was a student, and I will refer to him as such, but Mr. Stoneham did not know that at the time. Mr. Stoneham sought help from the office, and in the meantime, did not allow this student to leave the room. Here’s what the IHE said happened next:
Finding of Fact 14: Before help could come, [the student] escalated the encounter. [The student] was being aggressive. Mr. Stoneham testified that [the student] grabbed Mr. Stoneham’s upper arms in what Mr. Stoneham called assaulting him….Later, [the student aggressively shoved Mr. Stoneham in an attempt to exit the classroom.
FOF 15. The situation devolved in a matter of seconds.
FOF 18: It is undisputed that Stoneham and [the student] went to a prone position on the ground. How they got there is not material to the recommendation.
FOF 19: Stoneham held [the student] on the ground for approximately two minutes, using the weight of his torso for control, his left hand to pin [the student’s] right hand. [The student] punched Stoneham in the face repeatedly while [the student] was down.
There is more to it, of course, but that’s the basic picture. Teacher and student on the floor, student punching teacher, while teacher holds student down. I think it’s safe to say that people viewing this scene would come to different conclusions about the propriety of the teacher’s use of force. The IHE thought it justified termination of employment. The board thought it justified termination. The Commissioner did not. Exactly how the mythical “ordinary and prudent” person would view it…who can say?
For the lawyers, there is much in this decision to study, particularly about the Commissioner’s expectations for exactly how school boards should analyze all of the factors that weigh in the balance on a case like this. We don’t have room to go into all of that here in the Daily Dawg, but I’m just re-iterating: the lawyers need to study this one.
It’s Stoneham v. Crowley ISD, Docket No. 036-R2-04-2022, decided on June 15, 2022. It’s on appeal in Tarrant County District Court.
DAWG BONE: HOW THE ORDINARY AND PRUDENT PERSON WOULD SEE IT IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO SECOND GUESSING.
Got a question or comment for the Dawg? Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com.
Tomorrow: a charter school case