Opinion ID: 1862034
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: compliance with statutory observation and evaluation procedures

Text: While the contract of a permanent certificated employee of a school district may be terminated only for specific grounds enumerated in Neb.Rev.Stat. § 79-829 (Reissue 1996), a school board may elect not to renew the contract of a probationary certificated employee for any reason it deems sufficient if such nonrenewal is not for constitutionally impermissible reasons and the nonrenewal is carried out in conformity with statutory requirements. See § 79-828(4). These include the requirement of § 79-828(2), which provides in part: All probationary certificated employees employed by Class I, II, III, and VI school districts shall, during each year of probationary employment, be evaluated at least once each semester, unless the probationary certificated employee is a superintendent, in accordance with the procedures outlined below: The probationary employee shall be observed and evaluation shall be based upon actual classroom observations for an entire instructional period. If deficiencies are noted in the work performance of any probationary employee, the evaluator shall provide the teacher or administrator at the time of the observation with a list of deficiencies, a list of suggestions for improvement and assistance in overcoming the deficiencies, and followup evaluations and assistance when deficiencies remain. We stated in Cox v. York Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 083, supra , that these procedural requirements are a prerequisite to a school board's election to amend or not renew the contract of a probationary certificated teacher. See, also, Kennedy v. Board of Ed. of Sch. Dist. of Ogallala, 230 Neb. 68, 430 N.W.2d 49 (1988); Nuzum v. Board of Ed. of Sch. Dist. of Arnold, supra . The statutes do not require either the evaluation or the listing of perceived deficiencies to be in written form. Nuzum v. Board of Ed. of Sch. Dist. of Arnold, supra . McQuinn contends that the statutory evaluation procedures were not followed during her third year of employment by the District. With respect to the first semester of that year, the record reflects that Bruckner and McQuinn developed a written growth plan dated November 2, 1996, as a followup to evaluations of McQuinn's performance during the preceding school year. The growth plan listed Active Participation as a goal for the 1996-97 school year. Bruckner testified that this was an aspect of classroom management. The record also reflects that Bruckner conducted two formal observations of McQuinn's performance during the first semester, each for an entire instructional period. Bruckner's contemporaneous notes of the first observation on November 8 reflect several deficiencies in McQuinn's performance, including her improper reference to some students in the class as belonging to the upper group; imputing one student's inability to understand the material to the entire class; alienating gifted students in the class by referring to them as challenge students; spending too much time addressing one child's question, allowing other students to get off task; confusing students by moving between trains of thought without forewarning; and having problems with on-task behavior. Bruckner testified at the hearing that all of these listed items relate to classroom management and that during a conference with McQuinn immediately following his observation, he discussed all of these areas with her and offered suggestions and strategies for dealing with the areas of concern. Bruckner conducted a second formal observation of McQuinn's classroom performance on December 10, 1996, during which he noted inattentiveness among McQuinn's students. During a conference following this observation, Bruckner discussed the inattentiveness issue with McQuinn and offered suggestions on how to deal with students who are off task. During the second semester of the 1996-97 school year, Bruckner conducted one formal observation for an entire instructional period on February 17, 1997, as well as three to four subsequent informal walk-through evaluations. Bruckner's notes from the formal observation list management, including problems with inattentiveness, as an area for growth. Following this evaluation, Bruckner testified that he held a conference with McQuinn and discussed these classroom management issues, offering suggestions and strategies on how to deal with the problems. At some point soon after this evaluation session, Bruckner concluded that no significant improvement had been made in the classroom management problems exhibited by McQuinn since the 1995-96 school year. He testified that up until February we were in, I guess, in a position to  to try to fix things and make things better and  and to help her improve the best we could. It occurred to me after my February observation that  that things had not, in fact, gotten any better. Based on his observations, Bruckner concluded that McQuinn did not effectively and consistently manage her class during the 1996-97 school year and that her classroom management skills declined during the 1996-97 year as compared to the preceding year. He therefore recommended that her contract not be renewed. McQuinn argues that she was never advised that failure to correct her problems with classroom management would place her contract in jeopardy. In rejecting a similar argument in Nuzum v. Board of Ed. of Sch. Dist. of Arnold, 227 Neb. 387, 417 N.W.2d 779 (1988), we determined that there was no statutory requirement that a probationary certificated employee be specifically told that a perceived performance deficiency is of such a magnitude that a failure to remedy it would lead to nonrenewal of the employment contract. Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence as a matter of law to establish compliance by the District with the observation and evaluation procedures required by § 79-828(2).