A Taylor Creek Elementary School third-grade teacher who was proposed for termination of her probationary contract received word that the Board of Trustees of the Lampasas Independent School District agreed with the findings of an independent examiner that there was not good cause to terminate Wendy Gholson’s contract.

Following a closed session at Monday night’s meeting of Lampasas ISD trustees, the board unanimously accepted the hearing examiner’s recommendation.

Court documents show the case stems back to an incident last fall at the Kempner campus after which Mrs. Gholson was placed on administrative leave with pay. The reason given for her proposed termination, Superintendent Randy Hoyer said, was “Mrs. Gholson failed to meet the district’s standards of professional conduct and that her actions diminished the teacher’s effectiveness in the district.”

The termination proposal was based on an event Sept. 28 when a physically handicapped student in Mrs. Gholson’s classroom needed assistance to stand up after recess. The student was known to have difficulty standing without assistance, court documents show.

The document states that Mrs. Gholson forced the student to crawl on his hands and knees over dirt, stones and acorns to a tree that was more than 100 feet away while his classmates watched, “despite the fact that all you would have had to have done to avoid this was either offer your hand to the student or place the chair you had been sitting on next to him so he could help himself up.”

Documents state Mrs. Gholson told the student the reason she did not lift him up was she wanted him to learn how to help himself, and that she didn’t want to hurt herself.

Mrs. Gholson’s case also states the student did not complain or show discomfort during or after the time he moved to the trees, and the other students did not berate him or make fun of him.

Mrs. Gholson believed her action was helping the student learn selfsufficiency, the document states, and that she did not intend to harm the third-grader in any way.

The student testified at the hearing that Mrs. Gholson is a good teacher, was nice to him, cares for him and did not let other students make fun of him.

The teacher’s testimony noted she had not been given an official directive on how to accommodate the student on the playground.

Tony Conners of Brim, Arnett, Robinett, Connors and McCormick of Austin represented Mrs. Gholson. The attorney said the decision made by the LISD board is the only decision they could make because under the Texas Education Code, “the board did not have the legal authority to change the hearing officer’s findings.

“The hearing officer acts as the judge, and he makes fact-finding and recommendations,” Conners said.

While employed by the LISD, Mrs. Gholson was never formally reprimanded or disciplined, and never failed to follow directives and expectations given by her principal, the documents state.

The hearing examiner noted that Mrs. Gholson mishandled the incident on the playground, as it would have been better to have provided a chair for the student to pull himself up.

The examiner said failing to provide a chair for the student was a mistake, but he felt the potential risk of harm to the student was “small.”

Considering the circumstances -- including Mrs. Gholson’s record of following directives of her superior, demonstrated care of the student and concern for his wellbeing, the lack of clear directives on how to accommodate the student’s not being able to rise to his feet from sitting on the floor and the remote likelihood Mrs. Gholson would make the same mistake again -- the hearing examiner said the evidence did not show good cause to terminate the teacher’s probationary contract with the LISD.

Conners agreed with the finding. “This should have been resolved by them [administrators] telling Mrs. Gholson how to do it correctly,” said her attorney. “It should have never gotten this far. The superintendent has never been involved in any kind of termination case, and this should have never come to that.”

Conners noted the LISD spent in excess of $80,000 in fees for an attorney, hearing examiner, court reporter, a teacher to replace Mrs. Gholson and payment through the end of her contract year.

“You’re talking close to $80,000 to $100,000. This could have been solved if they had taken our offer of a letter of reprimand and two months’ pay of $6,000. And we would have dropped the request for a hearing, her resignation would have been in effect on March 1, and we would have been gone,” he said.

“But the board rejected it,” Conners continued. “The LISD paid a lot of taxpayer dollars to go after someone with no prior problems. Witnesses testified she was a good teacher.”

The superintendent said Mrs. Gholson, who remains on administrative leave with pay, will not be back next year. She submitted her resignation effective at the end of the 2009-10 school year, and it was accepted by trustees.

“Mrs. Gholson will not return to the classroom at Lampasas ISD,” Hoyer said. “Teachers are subject to assignment. She is on contract, and we have to pay her through the end of the year even though she is not in the classroom.”

The superintendent said Mrs. Gholson, though, is required to be available at a moment’s notice to return to duties as assigned.

The board of trustees agreed to drop the matter, Hoyer said, because “it is rare the commissioner will make a different ruling than what the hearing examiner found.”

The superintendent said if there were a chance Commissioner of Education Robert Scott would change or overrule the examiner’s findings, trustees would have pushed forward. “The way she handled the situation was wrong, and I would not want my son or daughter treated in the same manner.”

Mrs. Gholson’s attorney said his client is entitled to be paid for the remainder of her contract and that she has asked to go back to Taylor Creek. “But I don’t think the superintendent has made a decision on that yet,” said Conners.

The attorney said Mrs. Gholson submitted her resignation to the LISD “because a probationary employee has no rights to a hearing, no right to an appeal and no recourse. If she had not resigned, the LISD would have terminated her, and she would have a black mark on her record.”

Conners said Mrs. Gholson had no prior problems, she received good appraisals, and she was wellliked by both teachers and students.

An LISD teacher is subject to a standard three-year probationary contract, but it could be extended if during the third year the board determines it is doubtful a continuing contract should be given. If the board makes such a determination, the district may make a probationary contract for a term ending with the fourth consecutive school year.

In Mrs. Gholson’s case, Hoyer said the board did not intend to offer the teacher a continuing contract.

Conners agreed with the hearing examiner’s findings that there was no good cause to terminate Mrs. Gholson’s employment.

“This should have been taken care of a long time ago,” he said, adding that LISD should have given the teacher a written plan that outlined accommodations to be made for a student with limitations prior to the event in September.

“They didn’t put together a plan of action until after the incident,” Conners said. “I think they were trying to appease the student’s parent, and it ended up not being successful.”

Mrs. Gholson got the best possible result, said Conners. “This has been difficult on her, but she clearly won.”