STATE OF IOWA
BOARD OF EDUCATIONAL EXAMINERS
Grimes State Office Building – 400 East 14th Street
Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0147
Minutes
Table of Contents
Motions
Meeting Called to Order
Licensee Discipline
Consent Agenda
Communication
Proposed Meeting Dates 2005
Distribution and Communication Strategies for Chapters 25 and 26
Renewal – First Reading
Position Statement on State-mandated Teacher Testing
Substitute Authorization Survey Results
Adjournment
STATE OF IOWA
BOARD OF EDUCATIONAL EXAMINERS
Grimes State Office Building – 400 East 14th Street
Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0147
Motions
July 30, 2004
Anita Westerhaus moved, with a second by Ying Ying Chen, that the Board go into closed session for the purposes of discussing whether to initiate licensee disciplinary proceedings and discussing the decision to be rendered in a contested case, pursuant to Iowa Code sections 21.5(1)(d) and 21.5(1)(f) and for the purpose of discussing personnel matters, pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.5(1)(i). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Upon consideration of the arguments presented by the parties upon appeal from the proposed decision in case # 03-11, Peyton v. Steele, Jacqueline Wellborn moved, with a second by Ying Ying Chen, that the Board accept the proposed decision with the following modifications:
1) On page 24, revise the last paragraph to express the Board’s conclusion that the Respondent displayed a pattern of overly harsh and oppressive behavior which has had a detrimental effect upon several children in the classroom.
Based on statements made to them by Dani and by the other parents, the Peytons concluded that the Respondent’s management of students in her classroom goes beyond high expectations and strict discipline to the point of humiliation and intimidation. The Respondent denied the most egregious of the allegations, including claims that she yelled at students who lost their place during reading, threw papers on the floor if they were not turned in appropriately, and dumped messy desks by pushing everything on the floor. These specific allegations are overcome by the Respondent’s direct testimony denying such behavior, the contrary hearsay reports from other students in her class, and the corroborating testimony of several of the Respondent’s co-workers that they never witnessed this type of behavior by the respondent. However, the preponderance of the evidence in the record does establish that the Respondent employed a classroom management style which was overly harsh and oppressive, to the point that at least three students experienced extreme difficulty adjusting to the class and were reported by their parents to have exhibited significant emotional distress and physical symptoms of stress as a result. The Respondent appears to have gone too far in her desire to maintain a structured and organized classroom. From the perspective of these students, their parents, and this Board, the Respondent failed to "create an atmosphere which fosters interest and enthusiasm for learning and teaching." In doing so, she violated 282 IAC 13.7(1)(a).
2) Revise the paragraph which begins in the middle of page 25 by striking the last two sentences, which find that the Respondent violated Board rules by refusing to meet with the Peytons on September 16, 2002, and inserting the following:
The Respondent’s refusal to meet with the Peytons or offer an alternate time for meeting with them after school on September 16, 2002, was inappropriate and unreasonable, if Mr. Sodawasser clearly conveyed the nature of the Peytons’ request to her. Although the record clearly establishes that the Repondent refused to meet with the Peytons when asked by Mr. Sodawasser to do so, the record does not establish that the Respondent refused a direct request from the Peytons or a clear violation of Board rules. It does appear, however, that many of the issues in this case were perpetuated by communication failures that may have been resolved by a timely meeting between the Respondent and Dani’s parents. The Respondent’s attitude with regard to the Peytons, as evidenced by her statement to Mr. Sodawasser during the fourth week of school that the situation was "getting ridiculous," does not indicate appropriate respect for the Peytons’ concerns or a willingness to work with them and Mr. Sodawasser to improve the situation.
3) Insert the following paragraph on page 26, at the end of the Discussion section of the decision:
Finally, although the Respondent is critical of the Peytons’ failure to make further attempts to resolve this matter at the local level by raising their concerns with the school board, the rules governing complaints before this Board do not require exhaustion of local remedies. Rather, the Board requests "a reasonable effort" to resolve problems at the local level. 282 IAC 11.3(7). In this case, the Board finds that the Peytons’ ongoing contacts with the building principal in an attempt to resolve their concerns represented a "reasonable effort" to attain local resolution of the issue.
4) Uphold the proposed reprimand and order the Respondent to complete a Board-approved elementary level classroom management course within twelve (12) months of the date of the Board order.
Roll call vote: Westerhaus – yes; Wellborn – yes; Seeland – yes; Robinson – yes; Paulsen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Chen – yes; Aboud – yes; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Anita Westerhaus moved, with a second by Ying Ying Chen, that in case number 03-32, the Board accept the proposed decision in all particulars and issue an Order adopting the proposed decision as the final decision of the Board. Roll call vote: Aboud – yes; Chen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Paulsen – yes; Robinson – yes; Seeland – yes; Wellborn – yes; Westerhaus – yes; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ying Ying Chen moved, with a second by Jacqueline Wellborn, that in case number 04-11, the Board accept the Respondent’s waiver of hearing and voluntary surrender and that the Board issue an order permanently revoking the Respondent’s license with no possibility of reinstatement. Roll call vote: Aboud – yes; Chen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Paulsen – yes; Robinson – yes; Seeland – yes; Wellborn – yes; Westerhaus – yes; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ying Ying Chen moved, with a second by Anita Westerhaus, that in case number 03-22, the Board accept the proposed settlement submitted by the parties and issue an Order imposing the sanction agreed upon by the parties. Roll call vote: Aboud – yes; Chen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Paulsen – yes; Robinson – yes; Seeland – yes; Wellborn – yes; Westerhaus – yes; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ying Ying Chen moved, with a second by Jacqueline Wellborn, that in case number 03-31, the Board accept the proposed settlement submitted by the parties and issue an Order imposing the sanction agreed upon by the parties. Roll call vote: Westerhaus – yes; Wellborn – yes; Seeland – yes; Robinson – yes; Paulsen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Chen – yes; Aboud – recuse; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED.
Anita Westerhaus moved, with a second by Ying Ying Chen, that in case number 04-04, the Board find that the evidence gathered in the investigation, including witness statements and the documentary evidence, does not corroborate the allegations in the complaint, and that the Board therefore lacks probable cause to proceed with this matter. Roll call vote: Aboud – yes; Chen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Paulsen – yes; Robinson – yes; Seeland – yes; Wellborn – yes; Westerhaus – yes; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Jacqueline Wellborn moved, with a second by Anita Westerhaus, that in case number 04-05, the Board find that the evidence gathered in the investigation, including witness statements and the documentary evidence, does not corroborate the allegations in the complaint, and that the Board therefore lacks probable cause to proceed with this matter. Roll call vote: Aboud – yes; Chen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Paulsen – yes; Robinson – yes; Seeland – yes; Wellborn – yes; Westerhaus – yes; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Anita Westerhaus moved, with a second by Ying Ying Chen, that in case number 04-08, the Board find probable cause to establish a violation of 13.5(2)(b) and 12.3(1)(c) of professional practices and competent performance established by this Board and order this case set for hearing. Roll call vote: Aboud – yes; Chen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Paulsen – yes; Robinson – yes; Seeland – yes; Wellborn – yes; Westerhaus – yes; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Jacqueline Wellborn moved, with a second by Anita Westerhaus, that in case number 04-12, the Board find probable cause to establish a violation of one or more of the criteria for professional practices and competent performance established by this Board and order this case set for hearing. Roll call vote: Aboud – yes; Chen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Paulsen – yes; Robinson – yes; Seeland – yes; Wellborn – yes; Westerhaus – yes; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Referring to the June 25, 2004, minutes, John Aboud noted that he did not both move and second the motion for PFW 04-15 on page 8, line 4 and page 21, line 13. Mr. Aboud moved and Brian Carter seconded the motion to approve the petition. Thomas Paulsen indicated that he had left the June meeting immediately prior to consideration of the Petitions for Waiver, and he, therefore, did not vote on the petitions as recorded on page 7, lines 4 and 9 and page 17, lines 7 and 21. Anita Westerhaus moved, with a second by John Aboud, to approve the June 25, 2004, minutes, as amended. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Board later corrected another error: The vote on new Chapters 25 and 26 was not a vote to "notice," as recorded on page 5, lines 11-12 and page 14, lines 21-22, but a vote to "adopt and file."
Jean Seeland moved, with a second by John Aboud, to issue the following position statement regarding testing as a condition of licensure: "The Board of Educational Examiners does not recommend either pedagogy or content state-mandated standardized testing at this time. The Board expresses confidence in the teacher preparation programs in Iowa and their ability to continually assess candidates on knowledge and skills that are required for licensure competence. The Board also expresses confidence in the state-mandated two-year beginning teacher mentoring and induction program and the revised evaluator training. The Board does not recommend state-mandated standardized testing as a condition for licensure." MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
STATE OF IOWA
BOARD OF EDUCATIONAL EXAMINERS
Grimes State Office Building – 400 East 14th Street
Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0147
Minutes
July 30, 2004
The Board of Educational Examiners held its monthly meeting on July 30, 2004, at Comfort Suites at Living History Farms in Urbandale. Board Chair Peter Hathaway called the meeting to order at 9 a.m. Members attending were John Aboud, Ying Ying Chen, Peter Hathaway, Judy Jeffrey, Thomas Paulsen, Dr. Greg Robinson, Jean Seeland, Jacqueline Wellborn and Anita Westerhaus. Also in attendance were Dr. Anne Kruse, Executive Director of the Board; Christie Scase and Jeanie Vaudt, Assistant Attorneys General and legal counsel to the Board; Barbara Hendrickson, Board Secretary; and other visitors. Brian Carter and William Haigh were unable to attend the meeting. Ms. Scase left at 10:48 a.m., Ms. Vaudt joined the afternoon session at 12:59 p.m., and Ms. Seeland left at 2:07 p.m.
Anita Westerhaus moved, with a second by Ying Ying Chen, that the Board go into closed session for the purposes of discussing whether to initiate licensee disciplinary proceedings and discussing the decision to be rendered in a contested case, pursuant to Iowa Code sections 21.5(1)(d) and 21.5(1)(f) and for the purpose of discussing personnel matters, pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.5(1)(i). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The Board reconvened into open session shortly after 10 a.m. and then took a brief recess.
Upon consideration of the arguments presented by the parties upon appeal from the proposed decision in case # 03-11, Peyton v. Steele, Jacqueline Wellborn moved, with a second by Ying Ying Chen, that the Board accept the proposed decision with the following modifications:
1) On page 24, revise the last paragraph to express the Board’s conclusion that the Respondent displayed a pattern of overly harsh and oppressive behavior which has had a detrimental effect upon several children in the classroom.
Based on statements made to them by Dani and by the other parents, the Peytons concluded that the Respondent’s management of students in her classroom goes beyond high expectations and strict discipline to the point of humiliation and intimidation. The Respondent denied the most egregious of the allegations, including claims that she yelled at students who lost their place during reading, threw papers on the floor if they were not turned in appropriately, and dumped messy desks by pushing everything on the floor. These specific allegations are overcome by the Respondent’s direct testimony denying such behavior, the contrary hearsay reports from other students in her class, and the corroborating testimony of several of the Respondent’s co-workers that they never witnessed this type of behavior by the respondent. However, the preponderance of the evidence in the record does establish that the Respondent employed a classroom management style which was overly harsh and oppressive, to the point that at least three students experienced extreme difficulty adjusting to the class and were reported by their parents to have exhibited significant emotional distress and physical symptoms of stress as a result. The Respondent appears to have gone too far in her desire to maintain a structured and organized classroom. From the perspective of these students, their parents, and this Board, the Respondent failed to "create an atmosphere which fosters interest and enthusiasm for learning and teaching." In doing so, she violated 282 IAC 13.7(1)(a).
2) Revise the paragraph which begins in the middle of page 25 by striking the last two sentences, which find that the Respondent violated Board rules by refusing to meet with the Peytons on September 16, 2002, and inserting the following:
The Respondent’s refusal to meet with the Peytons or offer an alternate time for meeting with them after school on September 16, 2002, was inappropriate and unreasonable, if Mr. Sodawasser clearly conveyed the nature of the Peytons’ request to her. Although the record clearly establishes that the Repondent refused to meet with the Peytons when asked by Mr. Sodawasser to do so, the record does not establish that the Respondent refused a direct request from the Peytons or a clear violation of Board rules. It does appear, however, that many of the issues in this case were perpetuated by communication failures that may have been resolved by a timely meeting between the Respondent and Dani’s parents. The Respondent’s attitude with regard to the Peytons, as evidenced by her statement to Mr. Sodawasser during the fourth week of school that the situation was "getting ridiculous," does not indicate appropriate respect for the Peytons’ concerns or a willingness to work with them and Mr. Sodawasser to improve the situation.
3) Insert the following paragraph on page 26, at the end of the Discussion section of the decision:
Finally, although the Respondent is critical of the Peytons’ failure to make further attempts to resolve this matter at the local level by raising their concerns with the school board, the rules governing complaints before this Board do not require exhaustion of local remedies. Rather, the Board requests "a reasonable effort" to resolve problems at the local level. 282 IAC 11.3(7). In this case, the Board finds that the Peytons’ ongoing contacts with the building principal in an attempt to resolve their concerns represented a "reasonable effort" to attain local resolution of the issue.
4) Uphold the proposed reprimand and order the Respondent to complete a Board-approved elementary level classroom management course within twelve (12) months of the date of the Board order.
Roll call vote: Westerhaus – yes; Wellborn – yes; Seeland – yes; Robinson – yes; Paulsen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Chen – yes; Aboud – yes; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Anita Westerhaus moved, with a second by Ying Ying Chen, that in case number 03-32, the Board accept the proposed decision in all particulars and issue an Order adopting the proposed decision as the final decision of the Board. Roll call vote: Aboud – yes; Chen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Paulsen – yes; Robinson – yes; Seeland – yes; Wellborn – yes; Westerhaus – yes; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ying Ying Chen moved, with a second by Jacqueline Wellborn, that in case number 04-11, the Board accept the Respondent’s waiver of hearing and voluntary surrender and that the Board issue an order permanently revoking the Respondent’s license with no possibility of reinstatement. Roll call vote: Aboud – yes; Chen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Paulsen – yes; Robinson – yes; Seeland – yes; Wellborn – yes; Westerhaus – yes; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ying Ying Chen moved, with a second by Anita Westerhaus, that in case number 03-22, the Board accept the proposed settlement submitted by the parties and issue an Order imposing the sanction agreed upon by the parties. Roll call vote: Aboud – yes; Chen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Paulsen – yes; Robinson – yes; Seeland – yes; Wellborn – yes; Westerhaus – yes; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ying Ying Chen moved, with a second by Jacqueline Wellborn, that in case number 03-31, the Board accept the proposed settlement submitted by the parties and issue an Order imposing the sanction agreed upon by the parties. Roll call vote: Westerhaus – yes; Wellborn – yes; Seeland – yes; Robinson – yes; Paulsen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Chen – yes; Aboud – recuse; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED.
Anita Westerhaus moved, with a second by Ying Ying Chen, that in case number 04-04, the Board find that the evidence gathered in the investigation, including witness statements and the documentary evidence, does not corroborate the allegations in the complaint, and that the Board therefore lacks probable cause to proceed with this matter. Roll call vote: Aboud – yes; Chen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Paulsen – yes; Robinson – yes; Seeland – yes; Wellborn – yes; Westerhaus – yes; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Jacqueline Wellborn moved, with a second by Anita Westerhaus, that in case number 04-05, the Board find that the evidence gathered in the investigation, including witness statements and the documentary evidence, does not corroborate the allegations in the complaint, and that the Board therefore lacks probable cause to proceed with this matter. Roll call vote: Aboud – yes; Chen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Paulsen – yes; Robinson – yes; Seeland – yes; Wellborn – yes; Westerhaus – yes; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Anita Westerhaus moved, with a second by Ying Ying Chen, that in case number 04-08, the Board find probable cause to establish a violation of 13.5(2)(b) and 12.3(1)(c) of professional practices and competent performance established by this Board and order this case set for hearing. Roll call vote: Aboud – yes; Chen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Paulsen – yes; Robinson – yes; Seeland – yes; Wellborn – yes; Westerhaus – yes; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Jacqueline Wellborn moved, with a second by Anita Westerhaus, that in case number 04-12, the Board find probable cause to establish a violation of one or more of the criteria for professional practices and competent performance established by this Board and order this case set for hearing. Roll call vote: Aboud – yes; Chen – yes; Jeffrey – yes; Paulsen – yes; Robinson – yes; Seeland – yes; Wellborn – yes; Westerhaus – yes; and Hathaway – yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Referring to the June 25, 2004, minutes, John Aboud noted that he did not both move and second the motion for PFW 04-15 on page 8, line 4 and page 21, line 13. Mr. Aboud moved and Brian Carter seconded the motion to approve the petition. Thomas Paulsen indicated that he had left the June meeting immediately prior to consideration of the Petitions for Waiver, and he, therefore, did not vote on the petitions as recorded on page 7, lines 4 and 9 and page 17, lines 7 and 21. Anita Westerhaus moved, with a second by John Aboud, to approve the June 25, 2004, minutes, as amended. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Board later corrected another error: The vote on new Chapters 25 and 26 was not a vote to "notice," as recorded on page 5, lines 11-12 and page 14, lines 21-22, but a vote to "adopt and file."
Board Member Jean Seeland informed the Board that the following week, the Iowa State Education Association (ISEA) would be hosting its annual conference and that she would be doing a piece on professional ethics. Ms. Seeland expressed thanks to Licensure Consultant Jane Heisen for providing a significant amount of substantive material for that. Board Member Jacqueline Wellborn added that at that same conference, ISEA would provide its first recertification professional development class. Executive Director Dr. Anne Kruse said that she and Assistant Attorney General and legal counsel to the Board Christie Scase would be making a presentation on ethics at the School Administrators of Iowa (SAI) meeting also being held in August.
Board Chair Peter Hathaway gave an update on the Executive Director search. The Board’s first and second choices for the position turned down the job offer. The Board next discussed a new timeline for filling the position. Members decided to conduct interviews on September 16 and to move the board meeting from September 10 to September 17, 2004.
At 10:55 a.m., the Board discussed going into closed session in order to discuss matters related to the appointment of an interim Executive Director. Anita Westerhaus moved, with a second by Jacqueline Wellborn, that the Board go into closed session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters, pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.5(1)(i). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The Board reconvened into open session at 11:21 a.m.
Board Chair Peter Hathaway informed attendees that a procedural question had arisen about the propriety of the motion to go into closed session. Assistant Attorney General and legal counsel to the Board Jeanie Vaudt believed that the most appropriate course of action was to give 24 hours notice before closed session discussion of the issue at hand. Nothing was discussed in closed session, and Anita Westerhaus and Jacqueline Wellborn, respectively, withdrew the motion and second while in closed session. The Board agreed to hold a closed session conference call, following appropriate notice, on Wednesday, August 4, 2004, at 8 a.m.
At the time of Public Comment, Kathy Collins of SAI asked if the Board was considering changes to the position vacancy announcement for the Executive Director position. Board Chair Peter Hathaway said that the doctoral degree requirement will be dropped, and because of that, paid advertisement will still
not be expanded beyond that of the local newspaper, since it is believed that other candidates will now be attracted to apply. Mr. Hathaway added that an interim Executive Director may be necessary if a good candidate is not available to fill the position for some time.
Executive Director Dr. Anne Kruse distributed sheets with fiscal year 2004 figures on numbers of licenses and revenue generated by various fees, as well as comparative data from fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
The Board recessed for lunch at 11:32 a.m. and reconvened at 12:56 p.m.
Board Chair Peter Hathaway informed attendees that Assistant Attorney General and legal counsel to the Board Jeanie Vaudt counseled him that it would be ill advised to conduct a full Board closed session by telephone on Wednesday, as was announced earlier in the meeting. Ms. Vaudt emphasized vigilance in making sure that whatever the Board does is procedurally correct. Mr. Hathaway hoped to secure input from Assistant Attorney General and legal counsel to the Board Christie Scase as well.
Executive Director Dr. Anne Kruse thanked the Board for the opportunity to serve in her position for the last seven years. She expressed appreciation for the farewell celebration held the evening before.
Assistant Attorney General and legal counsel to the Board Jeanie Vaudt presented the Board an update on legal proceedings in two Board cases that had been appealed in Iowa District Court.
The Board reviewed meeting dates through June 2005 and agreed upon the following: September 17 (with interviews for the Executive Director September 16), October 8, November 5, and December 10, 2004, and January 27 (with legislative reception January 26), March 4, March 31, May 5, and June 14, 2005. The Board will decide on possible retreat days in July at a later time.
The board packet contained copy of new Chapters 25 and 26 as finalized by the Administrative Code Editor. Broadly speaking, the Board considered print,
e-mail and website as opportunities for dissemination of the new rules, with institutions of higher education and professional organizations significant avenues for distribution. Other ideas for dispersal of information were mentioned. Significantly ambitious is a project that will utilize various past board cases to create various scenarios and accompanying discussion questions for curriculum guides for teacher preparation institutions, professional organizations and other interested personnel. With case identification information removed, the curriculum guide will serve as a teaching tool of Board expectations for appropriate and ethical behavior and of possible consequences of misconduct or unethical behavior.
Licensure Consultant Geri McMahon made a first-reading presentation on proposed changes to Chapter 17, which will align the rules with teacher quality legislation, eliminate references to community college renewal programs that are no longer necessary, and reflect acceptance, for renewal, of college credits from a regionally accredited institution.
Jean Seeland moved, with a second by John Aboud, to issue the following position statement regarding testing as a condition of licensure: "The Board of Educational Examiners does not recommend either pedagogy or content state-mandated standardized testing at this time. The Board expresses confidence in the teacher preparation programs in Iowa and their ability to continually assess candidates on knowledge and skills that are required for licensure competence. The Board also expresses confidence in the state-mandated two-year beginning teacher mentoring and induction program and the revised evaluator training. The Board does not recommend state-mandated standardized testing as a condition for licensure." MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Administrative Consultant Susan Fischer distributed materials that summarized results of a survey on the substitute authorization. Materials had been sent to those who possessed a substitute authorization, to those paraeducators who subsequently obtained a substitute authorization, and to the superintendent’s office in each school district in the state.
There being no further business, Board Chair Peter Hathaway adjourned the meeting at 2:18 p.m.