Opinion ID: 1684540
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure By The Tribunal To Grant A Directed Verdict.

Text: In her cross-appeal, Cobb argues that the tribunal erred by failing to grant a directed verdict. She notes that all of the evidence presented against her related to the time when she was the principal of Leestown, and thus an administrator. She argues that her status as an administrator meant that she was not a teacher. She also notes that charges under KRS 161.790(1)(a) and (d) require support in the form of a written record of teacher performance, [49] and she claims that the only written record in this case related to her performance as a principal. First we note that teacher, at least for the purposes of KRS 161.790, mean[s] any person for whom certification is required as a basis of employment in the public schools of the state, with the exception of the superintendent. [50] Principals fall within this category because they are required to be certified by the Educational Professional Standards Board. [51] Normally, school administrators, such as principals, are entitled to different procedural safeguards over their tenure, [52] unless the administrator has less than three years of service as an administrator, in which case, the administrator may, in effect, be summarily demoted as long as the superintendent complies with the notice procedures in KRS 161.760. [53] The superintendent followed the necessary procedures in this case to demote Cobb from her position as principal of Leestown because she had less than three years of service. Because such an administrator is also a teacher, however, at least for the purposes of disciplinary matters, he or she still enjoys the protection of KRS 161.790 with regard to termination and other sanctions. Despite Cobb's implication otherwise, this is actually a boon to those administrators who have failed to serve the full three-year probationary period. But this dual status also means that evidence of a person's conduct as an administrator is relevant to his or her continued employment as a teacher. The Board detailed Cobb's alleged cause worthy conduct in the termination packet that was sent to her. And the Board was allowed to present evidence of this conduct to the tribunal, which, upon consideration of that evidence, imposed what it considered to be the appropriate penalty. The Court of Appeals was correct in noting that the tribunal was entitled to review [Cobb's] conduct in that office [principal] as a standard for determining her fitness to continue as a classroom teacher. Thus the written record related to her performance as a principal was sufficient, and the tribunal properly considered the evidence and committed no error by refusing to grant a directed verdict.