Due to constraints imposed under State law, public school districts in Texas are at an extreme disadvantage in publicly discussing personnel matters that may involve employee privacy and ethical considerations.

However, since an employee of the district has chosen to express opinions and allegations against the District publicly in a hearing and in the media, Frisco Independent School District has an obligation to its employees, patrons and taxpayers to correct misunderstandings that have been expressed in the media. The information outlined in this timeline is limited to information discussed by the employee in the public hearing or in public statements the employee and/or her attorney have made in the media or information included in the documents disclosed by Mr. Dunn to KRLD Radio.  Unfortunately, the District’s efforts to fully respond to the employee’s allegations have been hampered by the continued refusal of the teacher and/or her attorney, Mr. Dunn, to provide written consent from the teacher permitting the District to release the teacher’s records in their entirety. 

Within these constraints, the District provides the following timeline of events regarding this matter:

May 2005 - As part of the principal’s end-of-year process, she conducted individual meetings with employees to discuss the year and suggestions for the future.  The principal and the teacher discussed some successes, performance concerns, and they discussed ways to strengthen the art program at Fisher Elementary. One suggestion was a field trip experience, since there had not been an art field trip in the last five years, and the Dallas Museum of Art was discussed as a good option. The trip, however, was not mandated.

2005-2006 School Year - Informal conferences and conversations with the teacher continued regarding performance concerns.  In February, the principal conveyed her concerns over the planning of the suggested field trip, including her inability to find a workable date for the field trip.  The principal proposed canceling the trip until the next school year to allow time for more adequate planning and directed the teacher to work with her specials team leader on the planning of the field trip.

April 26, 2006 - The field trip took place.  Upon their return, the fifth grade teachers and a parent shared concerns with the principal about the field trip regarding how poorly planned and organized the field trip was and how the students were inadequately prepared.  The principal discussed the concerns with the teacher the day following the field trip, however, there were no disciplinary consequences.  The teacher was never told there wouldn’t be a next year for her as an employee with the District.  

FISD is a strong supporter of the arts and the Dallas Museum of Art.  FISD has sent, and will continue to send, students to the DMA on field trips.  No teachers’ job status would be jeopardized based on students’ incidental viewing of nude art.  Additionally, no teacher would be fired due to a single parent complaint about students viewing nude art.   For any field trip, teachers are expected to preview materials through the eyes of the student who will be exposed to the material and to plan, prepare and communicate accordingly.  

May 4, 2006 - The teacher had her summative evaluation conference with the assistant principal and the principal at which time they reviewed the year's performance and discussed the summative annual appraisal that had been filled out on April 18 by her appraiser and included areas to address. Summative conferences for public school teachers are effectively a year-end evaluation of job performance, success, and areas for improvement. Following the meeting, the teacher later complained about her score on one objective of one domain. The teacher based her objections on the fact that she had not had adequate written documentation of expectations. Responding to this complaint, the teacher's supervisor agreed and consequently changed the evaluation score.

May 17, 2006 - As a follow-up to the summative conference, the principal and assistant principal had an end-of- year conference with the teacher in order to clearly communicate expectations, as the teacher requested.  During this meeting, the principal addressed ongoing concerns and outlined expectations for the coming year.  The teacher was not disciplined and suffered no adverse employment action as a result of this meeting.   

May 18, 2006 - In response to the teacher’s request that any concerns be provided in writing, the principal wrote a memorandum formalizing what had been communicated in the meeting on May 17th.  The memorandum was not a disciplinary document and did not impose disciplinary sanctions on the teacher.  The memorandum summarized the ongoing concerns regarding the teacher’s performance and provided directives for the end of the year and the following school year. The field trip experience was mentioned in one paragraph of the five-page document because it was a recent example of ongoing concerns with issues regarding the teacher’s planning, organization and follow-through. The directives outlined were reasonable and appropriate and would be considered standard expectations for a teacher in the District; they would not have required any excessive work or commitment by the teacher to complete.  Many of the directives were actually requests for documentation of actions the teacher should or would have already taken in her position as an art teacher.  Had the true focus of documentation been the viewing of nude statues, it would be reasonable to expect that a memo would have been issued immediately following the field trip.  That did not occur. 

The memo clearly does not state or imply that the teacher's job was in jeopardy or that she was not returning to work at Fisher Elementary for the 2006-2007 school year.  Contrary to this assertion by the teacher, Ms. Lawson specifically stated in the memorandum, "I am confident that we can work together to ensure that our students receive an exemplary art education and that you can be successful at Fisher Elementary."    This is not the type of memo a principal writes if she intends to fire or attempt to "run off" a teacher for one incident as alleged by the teacher.  The principal expected the teacher to return to Fisher Elementary for a successful 2006-2007 school year.  Indeed, on May 18th, following the May 17th conversation that was later documented in the memo, the teacher sent an e-mail to her principal stating, “I am looking forward to a really exciting year next year!”

June 1, 2006 -  The principal sent the teacher a memorandum to follow up regarding the directives outlined in the May 18th memo.  The memo did state that the teacher had not fully complied with the principal’s verbal and written directives and again requested compliance with the expectations outlined in the May 18th memo.

June 1, 2006 -  In response to the May 18th memo, the teacher sent a memorandum to the principal, disagreeing with points of concern and directives and asked for the memo to be removed from her file.  In her response, the teacher did state that she would comply with the directives, although she didn’t agree with two of them.  The memo was not removed from her file, but her response was included in the file.

June 8, 2006 - The teacher formally “grieved” issues regarding the May 18th memo.  A “grievance" in Texas public schools is a three-step administrative process that provides for an employee to request a review of employment issues.  In her initial grievance, the teacher’s complaints consisted of the following issues:  stating that communication with her administrators had become extremely poor and that she wanted it to improve; that the amount of directives contained in the memorandum along with the specific dates the directives needed to be accomplished by led her to believe that it was an attempt to put her on a growth plan; that she wanted to be treated as a professional; and that she wanted to be reassigned to another campus if a position was available.  NOTE:  The teacher did not raise any issues regarding the field trip to the Dallas Museum of Art, allege violations of her First Amendment rights, or the claims she is presently making in the media.  Similarly, in the documents filed in her Level II and Level III Appeals, the teacher continued to seek the same relief.  The teacher’s request for a transfer was denied by FISD’s Central office because it is the practice of the District to not permit a teacher to transfer after a supervisor has given them guidelines for improvement.

Summer 2006 - Attempts to reach the teacher by phone and e-mail regarding staff shirts and other issues failed.  The teacher did not return phone calls or e-mails, even those that she had opened.

August 11, 2006 - No art work from the previous school year was displayed at “Meet the Teacher Night”, as had been directed in the May 18th memo.  The expectation to present a prepared room is expected of every teacher on the campus.  In addition, sub lesson plans which were to be submitted were incomplete and did not meet standards for a lesson plan (examples were given).  This is a critical issue as incomplete lesson plans would not provide appropriate guidance for a substitute teacher to lead students’ lessons.

Additionally, a meeting was held on August 11th regarding before and after school duties for all teachers.  During the meeting, the teacher became very disrespectful and insubordinate to her supervisors.  As a demonstration of continued efforts to work with the teacher, when she later complained regarding her ability to have a bathroom break prior to her after-school duty, the school worked with the teacher to accommodate her needs.

August 15, 2006 - The principal issued a memo to the teacher again addressing the directives outlined in the May 18th memo, noting that several of the directives had not been met and reiterating the importance of compliance with the directives.  Notably, the issues of appropriate completion of lesson plans and substitute plans were again raised.  These issues were raised because they were very important to the ongoing educational opportunities for students in the regular teacher's absence.  This issue should not be diminished.  In the memo, the principal even offered the teacher an opportunity to ask any questions she might have regarding the directives to assure that she was clear on the performance expectations.  The principal’s efforts in this regard are not consistent with claims by the teacher that she was being “forced out” or targeted for termination.

August 21, 2006 - The teacher presented her Level III appeal to the Board (through her legal counsel) and for the first time made accusations of “censorship” and the “denial of academic freedom.”  These claims were not made until the public hearing at which the media was present.  The teacher’s attorney also discussed her being an “award winning teacher,” referencing the teacher receiving a “Star Award Teacher of the Year 2004.”  However, this misrepresented the claimed recognition.  The award was a recognition given by the local Frisco paper (The Enterprise) and a local business through paid ads for a period of time that recognized “Frisco ISD Stars of Month.”  Generally there was one “star employee” per month for each school. The teacher was one of 21 FISD employees named “Star Employee of the Month” for the month of March 2004. There were no uniform District-wide criteria for selection of the employees.  Teachers were recognized, as were volunteers, custodians, receptionists, and others. Neither FISD nor the State conducts this program. FISD does not conduct the Teacher of the Year program.  

Despite claiming she was not seeking media attention, after the hearing, the teacher granted and willingly participated in numerous media interviews to discuss her private employment issues.  In those interviews, the teacher made insulting, inaccurate, and unfounded comments about her supervisor, alleged illegal motives on the part of the Board, and misrepresented the concerns and directives of the principal as being solely or mainly about a student viewing nude art.  The interviews denigrated employees with stellar reputations who have done nothing more than perform their jobs. The interviews and the teacher’s actions also caused distraction from the educational mission of the District.  Despite the teachers assertions, no one was instructed to ostracize her.

August 28, 2006 - The principal again summarized conversations with the teacher regarding the directives issued in the May 18th memo, reiterating the importance of compliance with the directives and offered clarification, if needed. 

During this timeframe, the teacher’s written and verbal communications with her supervisors became sarcastic and insubordinate.  In addition, the teacher issued statements and provided interviews to multiple media outlets which contained derogatory statements toward her principal and the District.  These statements involved private personnel matters, not a First Amendment issue and were not, therefore, permissible by law and could be viewed as insubordination.  The teacher’s actions created a disruption to the campus and educational environment.

September 14, 2006 - The principal issued a memorandum to the teacher regarding inappropriate actions by the teacher in discussing her private personnel issues with students.  This memo was drafted following an investigation of complaints from students and parents that students were singled-out by the teacher for questioning regarding the media coverage and the students were upset by the teacher’s actions.  The teacher was directed to immediately cease such communications with students because they did not promote a supportive learning environment and were not part of an appropriate art lesson.

September 22, 2006 -  The teacher was put on paid administrative leave based on a determination that placing the teacher on administrative leave with pay served the best interests of the District.  At a September 25 meeting the Superintendent stated he would be preparing a recommendation for the non-renewal of the teacher’s contract for next year. Although the Superintendent couldn't speak specifically to reasons for the non-renewal, he believes it is educationally unwise for any school district to tolerate actions and circumstances that divert time and attention away from the work of educating students, without taking steps to end such distractions.  The recommendation had not been made to the Board, pending discussions of an agreement to resolve the matter.

October 3, 2006 - FISD asked the teacher and her attorney for authorization to be able to release all records regarding her employment in order to better respond to these accusations and issues, but the response from the teacher and her attorney was that they would only release the records if the District released the personnel records of “all those involved.”

Mr. Dunn, the teacher’s attorney has asserted that all of the documentation and issues noted above were simply in retaliation for the teacher’s filing grievances and speaking out to the press.  This is incorrect.  The directives were issued on May 18th and the principal began following up on the directives on June 1st, before the teacher pursued her grievances beginning on June 8th.

The teacher chose to take her private personnel matters to the press and refused to comply with directives, as opposed to simply complying with reasonable expectations outlined by her supervisor. The principal has done an exemplary job.  Had additional issues not arisen following the May 18th memo, the teacher would not have been placed on administrative leave; the Superintendent would not have been considering a recommendation to non-renew her contract; and the teacher would be working at Fisher Elementary. Instead she refused to follow directives or take responsibility and continued to offer excuses for failure to fully comply. When she didn’t get a transfer to another campus, she took her matter to the media and misrepresented the entire situation. This is not about a field trip, this is about a supervisor’s ability to address performance concerns and an employee’s overreaction to such.

October 16, 2006 - At the Frisco ISD Board of Trustees meeting, the Board approved Superintendent Rick Reedy's recommendation to offer Ms. Sydney McGee a final settlement proposal. This settlement agreement approved for offer last night included:  1) full payment of salary and benefits through the conclusion of her 2006-2007 contract; 2) no confidentiality clause; 3) no joint statements; 4) no reference letter; and 5) the opportunity to resign as opposed to termination or nonrenewal.  If she fails to accept the settlement offer by the established deadline, the Board authorized moving forward with termination of her employment with the District.