Principal loses job after failing to investigate teacher's complaint

A school district proposed the termination of a principal's contract after she failed to respond to a teacher's complaint that she had seen another teacher pull a student's hair. The principal requested a hearing regarding the proposed termination. 

After the hearing, an independent hearing examiner found that good cause did not exist to terminate the contract; however, the board of trustees rejected that recommendation and voted to terminate the principal's contract. The principal appealed to the commissioner of education.

On appeal, the commissioner examined the background facts. A teacher notified the principal that a student had accused another teacher of pulling his hair. The teacher described the accusation as "important." Instead of talking to the reporting student or to the accused teacher, the principal suggested that the reporting teacher speak to the accused teacher and "speak up for her students." 

The reporting teacher spoke to the accused teacher, who denied pulling the student's hair. The reporting teacher relayed his denial to the principal, who did not seek more information after learning that the student's and teacher's accounts contradicted each other. The principal then assumed that the student was uninjured based on seeing him at school, but she did not interview him or contact his parents, despite the reporting teacher's stated concern that she did not know what to say if they contacted her. 

Five days later, the principal reported the incident to her supervisor when asking about an unrelated matter. The supervisor immediately made a report to HR and the district began an investigation that resulted in a conclusion that the principal should be terminated for failure to follow up on the reporting teacher's complaint.

On appeal, the principal argued that the board incorrectly disregarded findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the hearing examiner. Specifically, the hearing examiner found that the principal had previously sought guidance from her supervisor in the past and was worried about doing so in the future due to a culture of "walking on eggshells" at the district that made the principal fear disciplinary action if she did not know what she was supposed to do in her job. 

The hearing examiner also found that this was the first time that the principal had ever been required to investigate a teacher following an allegation of misconduct. Finally, the hearing examiner found that the student was not injured as a result of the teacher's actions and the principal was aware of this. The board of trustees modified these findings of fact when it made its decision to terminate the principal and the principal argued that it should not have done this.

After reviewing the case, the commissioner of education found that the principal failed to perform the duties of her assigned position with reasonable care, diligence and skill. 

This was evidenced by the five-day delay in starting an investigation. The principal could have, but did not, take action to contact the accused teacher, nor did she contact the student's parents at any time. This was of particular concern in light of the reporting teacher's stated concern that she did not know what to say to the parents if they contacted her. 

Finally, the principal failed to contact her supervisor for assistance, even though she had previously consulted her regarding other matters. Although the student was ultimately found to be uninjured, and the accused teacher was reinstated, the board found that the petitioner's delay in addressing the accusation was unreasonable.

The commissioner noted that there are many reasons why administrators must promptly respond to allegations of inappropriate teacher contact with a student. Although pulling a student's hair may seem relatively minor, it is not necessarily so. A seemingly insignificant incident or breach of student-teacher boundaries can lead to discovery of other inappropriate conduct. 

The principal was occupied with her other administrative duties and assumed that the student was uninjured, but that belief was a gamble. The board found her delay, as a campus leader, to be significant. Therefore, termination of her contract was appropriate.

The commissioner of education upheld the termination of the principal's contract.