Teacher files appeal after district nonrenews her contract

A school district proposed the nonrenewal of a teacher's term contract and the teacher requested a hearing regarding the proposed nonrenewal. 

Following the hearing, the district board of trustees voted to nonrenew the teacher's contract. The teacher filed an appeal with the commissioner of education. She did not have an attorney and represented herself, both at the hearing regarding the proposed nonrenewal of her contract and during the appeal of that nonrenewal.

In her appeal, the teacher claimed that during the hearing, the district's administration and its counsel engaged in "witness tampering" and took advantage of the fact that she did not have an attorney. She also claimed that the district's reasons for nonrenewing her contract unfairly evolved.

Upon receipt of her appeal, TEA issued an acknowledgement letter that set a briefing schedule and gave the parties a copy of the commissioner's administrative rules governing appeals, including requirements for briefs.

On her briefing deadline as set out in the acknowledgement letter, the teacher filed a three-page document titled, "Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Original Answer and Affirmation [sic] Defense." The document filed by the teacher was a narrative of approximately eight paragraphs, most of which were unnumbered or misnumbered, presenting many complaints. 

The teacher claimed that the superintendent was not directly involved in her nonrenewal, she alleged problems with theft and STAAR testing during her principal's tenure and claimed that the attorney for the district showed a lack of respect toward the teacher and her witnesses. She also made derogatory remarks against district employees who testified at her hearing, characterizing them as "unqualified, uncertified, ill-prepared teacher apprentices and learning coaches [who] lied and fake-cried" to please the attorneys for the district and administration.

The document filed by the teacher lacked any labeled sections, statement of the case, identification of issues presented, statement of facts, and citations to authorities or the local record, all of which are requirements for briefs according to the commissioner's rules. The school district requested that the teacher's document be struck from the proceedings for failure to comply with the commissioner's rules.

The commissioner stated in his decision that the teacher had not adequately presented any claims for him to consider. She did not file a brief that substantially complied with the commissioner's briefing rules. According to the commissioner, the document she filed on her briefing deadline could not even liberally be construed as a brief. The decision noted that "the commissioner cannot scour the record, which exceeds 700 pages, for evidence that could support what he can discern as petitioner's intended appellate issues and arguments. " The commissioner characterized the issues presented by the teacher in her document as "indiscernible from stray remarks."

Although she was not represented by an attorney, the commissioner of education determined that the teacher is held to the same standard as an attorney in meeting briefing requirements and dismissed the appeal for failure to state any claims.