DOCKET NO.

054-R10-08-2015
RICHARD D. YOUNG
Petitioner,
V.
DALLAS INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Respondent

BEFORE THE

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

THE STATE OF TEXAS

PETITIONERS AMENDED PETITION FOR REVIEW TO RESPONDENT

DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
Pursuant to 157.1051, Petitioner Richard D. Young, pro se, timely serves this Amended
Petition for Review before the Commissioner of Education in the State of Texas, against
Respondent Dallas Independent School District (Dallas ISD) (the district), by and through its
Party Representative, and respectfully shows the following:
I. Challenged ruling, action, or failure to act complained of
The Subcommittee of Board of Trustees of Respondent erred by not taking action on
Petitioners claims in his Level I and II Grievance Hearings and in his oral argument during the
Level III Hearing as follows:
January 30, 2015, Petitioner was improperly evaluated by his principal, Zachary Hall
(Hall), under the new TEI evaluation system, and was issued a poor evaluation without
justification. Respondent did not evaluate teacher on job-related behavior including teachers
implementation of discipline management procedures and the performance of teachers students,
but instead, gave Petitioner all zeroes in each domain. Therefore, Respondent has violated Texas
Education Code Subchapter H, Sec. 21.351.

February 9, 2015, Petitioner was placed on an unwarranted growth plan, which was
allegedly the result of the January 30 evaluation. Since Respondent already violated Texas
Education Code Sec. 21.351, Texas Administrative Code 150.1004(b) does not apply to
Petitioner. The performance improvement activities and indicators of success as successful
evidence listed on the growth plan are not consistent and are not aligned with the domains of the
evaluation in which Petitioner was evaluated on January 30. The growth plan violates Texas
Administrative Code 150.1004(b). Hall, Petitioners appraiser, did not issue Petitioner a copy of
his January 30 evaluation until February 9, 2015, which was ten days after he was evaluated,
violating Texas Education Code Subchapter H, Section 21.352(c).
Hall informed Petitioner that he would return to his classroom in two weeks for a reevaluation. Hall never returned as stated, violating Texas Administrative Code 150.1003. Hall
never conferenced with petitioner before, during, or after the growth plan regarding petitioners
evaluation performance appraisal, violating Texas Education Code Subchapter H, Sec. 21.351(d)
and Sec. 21.351(f).
One of the provisions entailed the petitioner to be racially segregated from Anglo and
Hispanic kindergarten teachers during group lesson plan submission, while petitioner was
required to erect his own detailed, minute-by-minute lesson plan, violating The Paperwork
Reduction Act, Tex. Educ. Code Section 11.164(a)(6).
On or around February 18, 2015, petitioner filed a Level I Grievance challenging the
growth plan which was the result of an unwarranted low evaluation. March 6, 2015, Petitioner
was verbally notified by his principal that he would not be recommended for certification to his
external alternative certification program and that he would be involuntarily dismissed from the
campus at the end of the month without justification. Petitioner inquired about utilizing his sick

leave prior to his dismissal. Hall stated to Petitioner that if he utilized any of his sick leave, he
would be removed from the campus and replaced with someone else. Respondent depriving
Petitioner his rights of utilizing his accumulated sick leave violates Texas Education Code Sec.
22.003.
Monday, March 16, 2015, petitioner was demoted to special education assistant, while his
teaching certificate was still valid, and was not afforded any time to remove his personal
belongings until later. That same afternoon, petitioner was made aware via email by his principal
that he would be the new Reading and Math Intervention teacher for grades K-2, a newly added
position to the campus. Petitioners kindergarten teaching position was never posted at any time,
violating Texas Education Codes 11 and 21. Respondent failed to direct petitioner to any
mandatory training or professional development for the 2014-2015 school term to provide any
instructional or physical assistance skills to children with disabilities, as required by law,
violating provision three of Petitioners contract and also violating several subsections of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Public Law 108-446 of Section 662 of United States
Code 1462, Statute 2775. Petitioner was not even qualified to be the new Reading and Math
Intervention Teacher for Grades K-2, violating Sec. 21.0481 and Sec. 21.0482 of the Texas
Education Code and again violating provision three of petitioners teaching contract.
Petitioner was never issued a job description to carry out his duties for his new role as
Intervention teacher, violating provision six of Petitioners contract. Petitioner had no guidance
or direction for his new role.
Petitioner was not directed to attend any mandatory training or professional development
for his new role in reading and math intervention, violating Texas Education Code Section
21.047(c). Respondent also refused to provide instructional materials, resources, and a

curriculum to Petitioner, violating Title 2, Subtitle A, Chapter 4, Objective 4 of the Texas

Education Code. Petitioner also emailed his principal and stated that the new classroom he was
reassigned to was only equipped with a computer for the teacher, no technology for the students,
violating Objective 10 of that same code.
May 20, 2015, Petitioner was notified of his contract termination at the end of the
contract term pursuant to Sec. 21.103(a). Petitioner was on paid administrative leave as of April
2, 2015 and was not allowed on his home campus. Respondent refused to mail a timely notice of
contract termination to petitioners home address of record pursuant to Sec. 21.103(a). Further,
Petitioner was required to arrive at the districts Employee Relations department in person to sign
and receive the timely notice of contract termination, which is not covered under Sec. 21.103(a).
Since Petitioners requirement to arrive on district property, other than Petitioners home campus,
to receive notice of contract termination notice, Respondent is in violation of Education Code
Sec. 21.103(a) and provision eleven of Petitioners contract. Petitioner can only receive notice of
contract termination at his home campus at Stephen C. Foster Elementary, or via certified postal
mail.
During the Level II grievance hearing held on May 29, 2015, Respondent Zachary Hall
did not state why Petitioner received a negative review on his performance appraisal or why he
was released from the district; but only proclaimed simplex dicta that petitioner was
unprofessional because his kindergarten students were allegedly running in the classroom,
petitioner was allegedly yelling at his students, and petitioner allegedly had McDonalds and
Starbucks debris in the classroom. Petitioner was never made aware of these alleged allegations
until the May 29 Level II Grievance Hearing, nor does his personnel file indicate he was ever
reprimanded for these alleged issues. These allegations do not meet good cause for

probationary terminations, therefore, violating Texas Education Code 21.104(a) and provision
eleven of petitioners contract (see exhibit). Further, these allegations violate Texas Education
Code Subchapter H, Sec. 21.351 because allegations of fast food remains and an educator yelling
do not coincide with the TEI evaluation domains or the indicators of success of Petitioners
growth plan.
Petitioner applied for a probationary certificate extension online, before the date his
teaching certificate expired. Petitioner submitted a payment confirmation to his principal, Hall,
and the principals immediate supervisor, Executive Director Timothy Hise. Hall and Hise did
not take any action. Hall advertently lied and stated that Petitioner had not made any attempt to
renew his certification, violating Texas Education Code Sec. 21.0031. Petitioner satisfied this
burden by taking the proper measures to extend his probationary certification before the
deadline. Petitioner has met all testing requirements and other requirements needed for
certification extension. Petitioners external alternative certification program was ready to
recommend Petitioner for certification. Petitioner was approved for a probationary teaching
certificate to expire in 2017. Petitioners principal will not recommend petitioner to the A-Plus
Texas Teachers Alternative Certification Program for an extension, in order for the new
certificate to be released from SBEC.
II. Date of challenged ruling, action, or failure to act
The decision of the School Board of Trustees of Respondent was rendered on Thursday,
August 20, 2015, in favor of the respondent by affirming the Findings of Fact and decision of the
Level II grievance Hearing Officer, and by denying the appeal of Petitioner.
III. Action Requested by Petitioner for the Commissioner to take

A.

1.

Petitioner requests that Commissioner take action in reference to where the

School Board of Trustees of Respondent erred by not taking action on Petitioners claims on the
Level I and II grievances filed and the oral argument presented by Petitioner during the Level III
Hearing.
2.

Petitioner requests Commissioner take action in reference to any and all violations

of Texas Education Codes and Texas Administrative Codes by the Respondent.

3.

Petitioner requests that Commissioner consider and take action on any and all

claims raised by Petitioner.

B.

Petitioner requests that Commissioner entitles Petitioner to relief as follows:

1.

Relief under Texas Education Code Sec. 21.304(e).

2.

All legal and equitable relief the Commissioner deems proper.

IV. Jurisdiction

Petitioner timely filed Petition for Review to Commissioner of Education in the State of
Texas on August 20, 2015 pursuant to 157.1049(a); Petitioner timely filed Amended Petition for
Review to Commissioner of Education in the State of Texas on October 24, 2015 pursuant to
Director of Division of Hearing and Appeals order dated October 22, 2015. The Commissioners
jurisdiction is based on 157.1041(a). Petitioner contends there are violations of the school laws
of this state.
V. Statement of Facts, de novo
On its face, Petitioner presents the following, in which judiciary evidence may not be
required:
1.

Petitioner was employed by respondent for nearly three years.

2.

Petitioner was highly qualified for his position as classroom teacher.

3.

Petitioner was housed under an external alternative certification program.

4.

Petitioner was employed by respondent under two probationary contracts, and under two

different building principals, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015.

5.

Petitioner received a performance appraisal from his external alternative certification

program.
6.

Petitioner received a performance appraisal from his principal.

7.

Petitioner was never conferenced by his principal regarding the performance appraisal.

8.

Petitioner received a copy of his performance appraisal ten calendar days after being

evaluated.
9.

Petitioner was placed on a growth plan three calendar days after reporting safety concerns

and trespassing violations to law enforcement officials and his principal.

10.

Petitioner timely filed a Level I Grievance challenging the growth plan which was the

result of Petitioner receiving a low performance evaluation.

11.

Petitioner was made aware of his involuntary dismissal from the campus approximately

ten days after filing the Level I Grievance.

12.

Petitioner was demoted to Special Education paraprofessional.

13.

Petitioner was involuntarily reassigned to a newly created position on the campus as an

Intervention teacher after filing a Workers Comp claim from being injured by a special
education student, while involuntarily serving as a paraprofessional.
14.

Petitioner received Decision of Level I Grievance 28 business days after Level I Hearing

was heard. [undisputed]

15.

Petitioner received Decision of Level II Grievance 19 business days after Level II

Hearing was heard. [undisputed]

16.

Respondent, by and through its Party Representative, intentionally lied to School Board

of Trustees Sub Committee during the Level III Hearing by stating that Petitioner was an atwill employee. [undisputed]
17.

Petitioner was placed on a paid administrative leave two days after already being

dismissed from the campus. [undisputed]

18.

Petitioners contract was involuntarily terminated at the end of the contract term

19.

Respondent used an improper delivery method to inform Petitioner of his contract

termination. [undisputed]
20.

Petitioner timely filed a complaint with the Texas Workforce Commission-Civil Rights

Division.
21.

Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Review under Texas Education Code Sec. 7.057 to

the Commissioner
VI. Party Representation of Petitioner
A party representative will not be representing Petitioner at this time, as Petitioner will be
appearing pro se pursuant to 157.1045, with the contact information as follows: 3810 Inwood
Rd. #116, Dallas, TX 75209, cell phone (972)201-6681, home phone (469)914-2240.
VII. Contact Information for Opposing Party
The respondent is represented by Carlos G. Lopez and Kathryn E. Long of the Vincent
Lopez Serafino Jenevein, P.C., Thanksgiving Tower, 1601 Elm Street, suite 4100, Dallas, TX,
75201, telephone (214)979-7400, facsimile (214)979-7402.

Respectfully Submitted,

Richard D. Young (pro se)

3810 Inwood Rd., #116
Dallas, TX 75209
Cell (972)201-6681
Home (469)914-2240
YoungRichardD@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of this document has been
served upon Respondent, by and through its party representative via Regular Postal Mail, on this
24th day of October, 2015.

Richard D. Young (pro se)