Teacher terminated

Thursday, April 24, 2008

The McCook Public Schools board of education voted unanimously early this morning to terminate the contract of a special education language resource teacher at the end of the current school year.

The board's 6-0 vote -- after a marathon public hearing that started at 6 p.m., Wednesday, and ended at 2:29 a.m. today, followed immediately by a three-hour closed session that lasted until 5:32 a.m., today -- ended Kim Christopherson's employment with the McCook school district effective May 27.

McCook Superintendent Dave Schley notified Christopherson on March 25, 2008, that the school board would consider terminating her contract at the close of the 2007-08 school year. Schley wrote in a letter to Christopherson that she had a right to a hearing and that the hearing would be conducted in public unless she and her legal counsel requested a closed session. Eight and one-half hours of the hearing was indeed conducted in open session.

Christopherson was represented by Rick Wade of Lincoln, legal counsel to the Nebraska State Education Association, of which Christopherson is a member. McCook's administration was represented by Kelley Baker of Lincoln; its board was advised by Lincoln attorney Rex Schultze.

Christopherson was accused of insubordination and unprofessional conduct, recurring problems about which a frustrated special education director Bob Saf wrote in a September 2006 memo, "I am at wits end over this."

The termination of Christopherson's contract was a recommendation made to the board by Schley and Saf and other members of the school's administration board.

Baker told the board in his remarks opening the hearing, "It is a sad moment to ask you to terminate a tenured teacher. The story that you'll hear is unfortunate," a story of "an adequate teacher" in whom administrators have lost confidence in her ability to work effectively with other teachers, staff and administrators.

Christopherson's attorney called it, "a case of a number of miscommunications, misdirectives and misconceptions ... lots of misunderstandings of what the rules are and how they changed."

Christopherson began her testimony by explaining that Jude Otto, a speech pathologist and fellow teacher, told her that the paperwork and necessary parental permission to test/evaluate a student "was in the works," and that Otto "told me to go ahead and test the child."

Baker asked her then how she could not respond to Saf's deep concerns over the inappropriate testing, when evaluating a child for special education services without parental consent is a violation of Rule 51. "You were accused of a violation of state and federal laws, and you didn't respond?," Baker asked. Christopherson admitted, "I did it. I was led to believe the paperwork was on the way."

Another major concern centered around Christopherson's non-attendance at IEP (Individual Education Plan) and MDT (Multi Disciplinary Team) meetings with other teachers, professionals and parents, and her seeming refusal to attend unless she received the hard-copy notification to parents/guardians of a meeting, a notification that she identified as the "official, legal" notification.

Saf explained to Wade that the parents/guardians' notification is "an end product," and is not part of the process of eliminating scheduling conflicts and setting dates for IEP/MDT meetings with parents.

Saf admitted that there is not a set protocol for scheduling such meetings, but that they generally are tentatively scheduled by professionals through e-mail communications and then by the final notification with parents. Wade asked how hard it would have been to provide Christopherson with a copy of the parents' notification if it would have helped her with her scheduling. Saf told Wade that the parents' notification is normally "not a communication between teachers."

Christopherson told Baker that her obligation to let others know of scheduling conflicts "is very unclear. I was not told in writing, and was not directed to say I could not attend."

Christopherson said scheduling conflicts seemed to be "worse than normal this year. They (my colleagues) didn't care if I could attend or not. My colleagues didn't care enough to let know know about meetings."

After repeated discussions about the situation with Saf, Christopherson told Baker that she learned, "I understood I would have to lower my standards to accept any and all means of communication as an invitation to a meeting."

Christopherson was accused of repeatedly impugning fellow teachers, in front of teachers and students, even to the point of accusing fellow teachers in writing of stealing a camera and a paper shredder. Christopherson said both were her attempts at making jokes, although no one who testified thought either situation was "the least bit funny." Special education department secretary Wendy Hageman testified that she and school psychologist Lynse Schmidt found the missing camera under the desk against the wall in Christopherson's classroom/office.

Christopherson chuckled, and said she thought "it was humorous, in a way," that Schmidt acquired the nickname "shredder thief." Christopher said she apologized to Schmidt, that she "never said directly that Lynse took the shredder."

She accused fellow teachers of not sending her important e-mail messages, although investigations revealed that it appeared that she had deliberately deleted several messages in question. "I do admit, I made a mistake," Christopherson said. "I made an error."

Errors repeatedly show up in her calculation of test scores, as Schmidt testified that 15 to 20 percent of all of Christopherson's test results must be reviewed and recalculated. Schmidt testified that Christopherson's errors and inaccuracy create mistrust in parents and could affect the level of service a child receives.

A serious matter that goes beyond the McCook school district came to light in major errors in Chistopherson's completion of "Medicaid in Public Schools" (MIPS) forms for reimbursement from state and federal governments for special education expenses.

Christopherson, Baker said, created records of spending time with a student on Jan. 1 and Jan 3, 2008, neither dates on which McCook classes were in session. Other dates, Baker said, were dates when teachers only, not students, were at school, and on dates that Christopherson was ill and not in class. "I made a mistake," Christopherson said.

Christopherson recorded having worked with a student on Jan. 23, 2008, a week after he left McCook and transferred to another school district, Baker said.

Baker asked, "Do you know your students?" "Pretty much, yes," Christopherson said. Then how could she, Baker asked, not realize that the student was not among the two or three students in her classroom.

"I was wrong," Christopherson said. "I could have gotten confused about who I had worked with. I thought I had him. Later, no, I didn't see him. I made a mistake," she rambled. "When it was pointed out (to me,) I realized he was gone."

Christopherson said that she "liked this child. He's a little bothersome, but ... "

Christopherson said she confronted a fellow teacher, Josh Jones, during a class period with students, upset that she had not been informed that the student left. "But you claimed you served him," Baker said. "I made a mistake," Christopherson replied. She apologized to Jones later for her interruption of his class, but testified that she did not know when else she might have been able to see Jones.

In September 2006, Christopherson wrote in bold letters to Saf, "Please get your facts correct before putting them in writing," in regard a confusion over paying for lunches eaten with students during a working lunch, and, again, missing scheduled meetings. She wrote, "It is a recurrent problem that I am mot informed of meetings that I should be attending."

That same month, Saf wrote to Christopherson that her missing meetings "demonstrates a recurrent nature on your part to be unreliable during work hours." He ordered that Christopherson sign in with principals in each building in which she taught in his effort to know where she was at all times, explaining to her that her missing meetings was impacting fellow teachers, administrators, parents and students' education.

In a memo to principals explaining the sign-in sheet and the need for the principals initials on them, Saf wrote, "Sorry about the inconvenience, but I am at wits end with this."

Junior high principal Dennis Berry testified that he had concerns about Christopherson the first year she taught, beginning with a team teacher's request not to teach with her, to not have her in her classroom. She had never been tenured at a previous employment, Berry said, and she was the only candidate for McCook's position.

Difficulties relating to students continued throughout each of the next three school years, Berry said. He testified that Christopherson has difficulty with "situational awareness," in which she perceives a situation much differently than anyone else involved, resulting in miscommunication, misunderstandings and misinterpretation of processes and procedures.

Berry said that he was impressed with Saf's efforts to reassign Christopherson when the team teaching arrangement did not work out, and his sensitivity to the fact that she is a single mother raising a young boy.

When Berry encouraged Saf not to renew Christopherson's contract after her first year, Saf changed her assignment, Berry said, so that she could "maybe be more successful."

Berry told Wade that remediation would not be successful at this point. "Because bridges have been burned ... because there have been too many conflicts with too many staff members," Berry said.

Lack of trust among teachers and staff members is "a chill factor," Berry said, "that breaks down communication and lessens (learning) opportunities for students."

Saf wrote the first of two formal reprimands on Dec. 17, 2007. "A written reprimand," Saf wrote, "constitutes a very serious step in dealing with a teacher's behavior, and you are encouraged to take this matter very seriously." He recommended that Christopherson contact her NSEA representative and/or an attorney regarding her legal rights.

The reprimand concerned:

* Conducting a re-evaluation assessment of a student without parental permission.

* Failure to attend IEP meetings.

* Berry's investigation of Christopherson's accusations that fellow teacher Sharen Saf-Phelps (Bob Saf's daughter) "yelled and screamed" at her during a confrontation. Berry interviewed those who were in the same area and no one was aware of a "screaming or yelling session." Saf wrote, "It is apparent that you reported charges to Mrs. Saf-Phelps' principal that were without merit and serve only to malign her professional conduct."

* Christopherson's contentions to a parent that her child's teacher was not following the girl's "IEP," and that the teacher said, "That girl is trying to run my room."

For each charge, Saf provided a "Corrective Action Plan," which included:

* Immediately answering e-mails and cooperating "in good faith" with the case worker as he/she schedules IEP meetings.

* Discontinuing making claims that an e-mail scheduling an IEP meeting is not a legal communication and therefore not an indication that she needed to attend an IEP meetings.

* Not disregarding appropriate parent notice and consent for evaluation.

* Discontinuing making statements that impugn the actions of fellow teachers.

Each corrective action ends with the statement that if Christopherson continues to be insubordinate, if she continues to make claims about "legal invitations" to meetings, if she fails to follow appropriate parental notice procedures and if she makes further groundless statements about colleagues, "you will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including immediate dismissal from employment."

Saf concluded: "This school district will not tolerate insubordination, unprofessional behavior or disrespect by its teaching staff."

Christopherson was encouraged to respond to the reprimand within seven days.

On Jan. 8, she responded that she understands the importance of following parental consent rules, that she understands the importance of attending meetings and of timely rescheduling of conflicts, that she understands the importance of maintaining positive relationships with parents and school personnel.

On Feb. 29, 2008, Saf filed another reprimand. "Despite what you wrote in your Jan. 8 memorandum, I am very concerned that you have not changed your behavior."

He cited:

* Unprofessional behavior toward Otto and for providing Otto with false information.

* Contrary to what Christopherson told Saf, she had not completed the scoring on a test for a student. Saf wrote that Christopherson's response was: "It must have just gotten by me." "Ms. Christopherson, this is another instance of your being untruthful."

* Christopherson's continued insistence that she had indeed served (what Baker called "the phantom student") "calls both your veracity and competence into question."

* Her interruption of Josh Jones' classroom. "It is unprofessional and inexcusable for you to confront Mr. Jones in the presence of students ... "

* Christopherson's refusal to cooperate with a case manager on setting a date for an IEP meeting. Saf wrote: "I find your account of the conversation with Mrs. Carpenter to be a complete misrepresentation. You continue to be evasive and untruthful with me."

Saf concluded: "In light of these developments, I cannot recommend the renewal of your employment at McCook Public Schools and will inform Superintendent David Schley of my position.


Rick Wade, Christopherson's attorney, questioned several administrators about the school district's protocol for evaluating and observing teachers, charging them with not following their own policies regarding both, a charge that neither Saf nor Schley denied. Saf said he solely accepted the responsibility for not having evaluated Christopherson both as a probationary and a tenured teacher.

"Do you think the lack of an evaluation was detrimental to (Christopherson') improvement?," Wade asked Schley, to which Schley said he felt there was a good plan of action in the reprimands. "There was no sign of willingness (on Christopherson's part) to improve or change," Schley said.

Wade contended that the sole purpose of a teacher evaluation is to help a teacher become a better teacher, to developme a plan of improvement. "Christopherson deserves the right of evaluation," Wade said.

Wade said that an observation by McCook Elementary Principal Lynda Baumbach indicates that Christopherson "meets expectations" of teachers in the classroom. He accused the board of ignoring Baumbach's evaluation. He told Baumbach, "If I were Kim Christopherson, I would assume my performance is meeting your expectations."


No one testified in support of Christopherson, although Wade entered letters of support from para-professional Linda Brunswick and school counselor Cindy Monnahan. Neither letter was read during the hearing or during action following the closed session.


A statement from the board following the closed session reads: " ... notwithstanding Mr. Saf's failure to appropriately formally evaluate Ms. Christopherson in writing during her probational period, testimony from Mr. Saf, Mr. Berry and Mr. Schley established that from the beginning of Ms. Christopherson's employment, Mr. Saf worked to help (her) to be successful."

It continued, "Despite Mr. Saf's investment of time and effort during Ms. Christopherson's tenure to help her be successful, such efforts were not recognized or implemented by Ms. Christopherson."

The statement reads: "Ms. Christopherson has engaged in conduct and an overall level of performance which is not at a sufficient level to continue Ms. Christopherson in employment. It is clear that just cause to terminate exists."

The official "Findings of Facts and Decision to Terminate" reads that Christopherson engaged in conduct that constitutes unprofessional conduct, insubordination, neglect of duty, conduct that violates school board policy and administrative directives, conduct that violates the trust that the administration must have in a teacher, conduct that is contrary to the best interests of students, conduct that is contrary to administrative directives, conduct that constitutes a breach of material provisions of her contract and other conduct that substantially interferes with the continued performance of her duties with the school district.

The motion to terminate Christopherson's contract was made by board member Diane Lyons and seconded by Larry Shields.

The vote was unanimous, and the meeting adjourned at 5:36 a.m.

Comments
View 9 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Good, this is a start with "cleaning house". There's a few more teachers that need to be reprimanded like this. Maybe this will wake all of them up and realize that they just can't get away with doing "nothing", not respecting others, and making sure their students are being taught what they are supposed to. Good Job Board!

    -- Posted by FNLYHOME on Thu, Apr 24, 2008, at 1:09 PM
  • *

    Unfortunately this should have taken place several years ago rather than putting up with her incompetence for so long. It always amazes me why so much valuable time is wasted on these sub-standard performers. Just look at the level of ineptitude that had to be reached before anything was done. At least it is a step in the right direction.

    -- Posted by ksfarmer on Thu, Apr 24, 2008, at 7:05 PM
  • The school system needs a better way to screen paras and teachers. Do we really need to spend our tax dollars on below average teachers??

    -- Posted by edbru on Thu, Apr 24, 2008, at 8:48 PM
  • I am appalled by the actions of Ms. Christopherson. As a fellow educator; we know the expectations of Special Education including state and federal guidelines. I cannot believe that McCook Public Schools allowed that amount of incompetence to proceed.

    What does that demonstrate to other communities and districts in the area?

    McCook Public Schools and the Board of Education please step up to the plate and not allow this amount of incompetence and ignorance to continue in the future. This is definitely a sad day when a "tenured" teacher is fired.

    Ms. Christopherson, I think you need to sit back and really think about the decisions, actions, choices and statements that you have portrayed to the community. You are "Not" a victim here!

    I cannot understand, nor believe that McCook Public Schools and the Board of Education have allowed Ms. Christopherson to finish out the year. I am sure that a substitute teacher could be located!

    -- Posted by Lil_Husker_Girl on Fri, Apr 25, 2008, at 12:50 PM
  • the really sad part is it took an 11 1/2 hour board meeting to get it done. If they dont meet the standard, get rid of 'em!!

    -- Posted by New Guard AR on Fri, Apr 25, 2008, at 2:51 PM
  • Some good may come from it.

    IF THE BOARD AND ADMINISTRATION get the rules and standards squared away.

    Without considering the teacher's failings, the administration effectively admitted their own lack of organization and direction.

    That affects all teachers effectiveness, all students' opportunity to learn and the taxpayers right to expect proper and efficient use of resources.

    -- Posted by bigsurmac on Sat, Apr 26, 2008, at 6:35 AM
  • It's a sad day that Special Education Teachers are persecuted and not protected these days from their own. As an insider the full truth has not be reported. Seems to me she was only following her example, Administrators weren't following their own Boards policy/procedures or ethics. When is the genreal public going to open their eyes. Teachers are held to professional ethics which state-do not misrepresent facts, information or laws. Where is it written that teachers shouldn't be treated with the IDEA laws,disability laws and procedures themselves. Hope the board see's this as their mismanagement and the administrations mismanagement. No wonder they can't find people to work here. People can't be in 2 places at the same time-what is a person to do?

    I have to chuckle at the article-what a miscarriage of justice. Teachers come in early,stay late, use there own personal time to ensure things are ready for the publics children, where are the families to back up those brave enough to teach these days. If teachers sat down and figured out there pay it would be less than minumum wage. yet they have to pay thousands for the education. Boy, something is wrong with this picture!!!! I pray for those souls that brave the teaching field.

    -- Posted by lawless2005 on Sun, Apr 27, 2008, at 12:57 PM
  • I appreciate the difficulty the administration and Board faced through this ordeal, However, I have not heard one word about how this may have affected the children intrusted to her .

    How many children were negatively affected by what appears to have been a very poor teacher.

    Special Education students are just that , Special, how is staff addressing damage to these children? How could anyone defend someone that didn't "notice" a student wasn't there?

    Just wondering..The primary concern should be the children...

    I do want to thank all those that stood up and spoke of their concerns. I understand how difficult it is to seperate the wall that goes up,generally, and the ranks close in just because a Union is involved.

    -- Posted by BarbO on Tue, Apr 29, 2008, at 9:48 AM
  • Well back again,

    * Immediately answering e-mails and cooperating "in good faith" with the case worker as he/she schedules IEP meetings.

    There is an otherside to this, she was not invited to some meetings thar Saf was aware of, but again, this oppositional behavior from Saf was never brought up and could be proved by e-mails sent to the Director of SPED. How one-sided. Do you think maybe he has favorites??

    * Discontinuing making claims that an e-mail scheduling an IEP meeting is not a legal communication and therefore not an indication that she needed to attend an IEP meetings.

    For the 5 years I have been a SPED teacher, we have always practiced a written copy to all involved, again, Saf has his favorites, covering for superiors over her.

    * Not disregarding appropriate parent notice and consent for evaluation.

    Well this is awfully funny, we don't take people on there words?? Who is not to be trusted-Administration/the Board-they didn't even demand compliance from their trusted administrators. Maybe we should all going hunting and cycling together to get in good graces with the board and administrators.

    * Discontinuing making statements that impugn the actions of fellow teachers.

    Wouldn't this impugn Christopherson,

    so proudly hung up at the JR High-

    lesson do on to others as they have done to you- what a lesson for our administrators and board to back.

    I thought it was do on to others as you would have done to you. I stand corrected, I guess!!! I see the incompetence in the Board/Administrators.

    -- Posted by lawless2005 on Mon, May 26, 2008, at 9:08 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: