Danna Braaksma v. Board of Directors of the Sibley-Ocheyedan Community School District ( 2021 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0067
Filed December 15, 2021
DANNA BRAAKSMA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SIBLEY-OCHEYEDAN COMMUNITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Osceola County, Nancy L.
Whittenburg, Judge.
A teacher appeals the termination of her teaching contract. REVERSED.
Christy A.A. Hickman of the Iowa State Education Association, Des Moines,
for appellant.
Stephen F. Avery of Cornwall, Avery, Bjornstad & Scott, Spencer, for
appellee.
Heard by Greer, P.J., Badding, J., and Potterfield, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2021).
2
GREER, Presiding Judge.
In an apparent question of first impression, we must discern how the
interplay between two statutes regulating the process to terminate a teacher
functions. This tension became apparent when, in the middle of the 2019–2020
school year, the Board of Directors (Board) of the Sibley-Ocheyedan Community
School District (District) voted to terminate the teaching contract of long-time
teacher Danna Braaksma. Braaksma asked for judicial review, and the district
court upheld the Board’s decision. Now, Braaksma challenges the termination on
appeal. She argues (1) the Board’s termination of her contract violated the Board’s
own policies and the teaching contract itself; (2) the termination of her teaching
contract violated Iowa law because she was not allowed to complete an intensive
assistance program (IAP)1 as provided by statute; and (3) the four reasons the
Board gave for ending her contract are not supported by a preponderance of the
competent evidence in the record.
Here, the tension exists between the Board’s contention it could terminate
Braaksma for just cause at any time—under Iowa Code section 279.27—and
Braaksma’s position that was not so if the reasons for the termination related to
conditions imposed under an IAP to address her teaching performance—under
section 284.8. Because we conclude the time for proving performance under the
IAP had not yet expired and the Board’s termination of Braaksma’s contract was
1 Throughout the proceedings, “intensive assistance plan” and “intensive
assistance program” have been used interchangeably. For consistency, and
because the statute refers only to an “intensive assistance program,” we use that
term throughout. See Iowa Code § 284.8 (2019).
3
in violation of state laws, its own policy, and the terms of Braaksma’s contract, we
reverse.
I. Facts and Past Proceedings.
Braaksma began teaching in the District as a substitute teacher during the
1980–1981 school year. She continued substitute teaching in the District until she
signed a continuing contract to teach high school Spanish for the 2001–2002 year.
Braaksma continued in that role, teaching Spanish I through IV, without issue until
the 2018–2019 school year.
It was then when Stan De Zeeuw was hired as the principal for grades seven
through twelve. As part of his job as principal, De Zeeuw evaluated teachers.
Braaksma, who, as a veteran teacher, was formally evaluated on a three-year
rotation, was up for evaluation in the spring of 2019. She elected to be evaluated
on March 21, during which time she was working with the students on a “close
read.” De Zeeuw took handwritten notes, which indicated Braaksma was
unprepared and still completing materials at the beginning of the class period.
De Zeeuw also expressed concern that Braaksma spent ten minutes explaining
close reads to the students when the students and teachers were supposed to
have been working on them all year.
After that review, De Zeeuw completed his written evaluation of Braaksma
in April. He concluded Braaksma failed to meet six of the eight teaching standards
outlined in Iowa Code section 284.3(1):
a. Demonstrates ability to enhance academic performance
and support for and implementation of the school district’s student
achievement goals.
b. Demonstrates competence in content knowledge
appropriate to the teaching position.
4
c. Demonstrates competence in planning and preparing for
instruction.
d. Uses strategies to deliver instruction that meets the multiple
learning needs of students.
e. Uses a variety of methods to monitor student learning.
f. Demonstrates competence in classroom management.
g. Engages in professional growth.
h. Fulfills professional responsibilities established by the
school district.
De Zeeuw met with the superintendent, Bill Boer, and the two administrators
decided Braaksma would be placed on an IAP.
To jumpstart that program, Boer and De Zeeuw met with Braaksma on April
25. Braaksma was given a typed “plan of assistance” that included fourteen bullet
points of expectations she was supposed to meet to address concerns with her
failure to meet the teaching standards. The fourteen points were:
 Students will receive timely feedback on assessments and
homework.
 Students will receive rubrics ([when] applicable) so they know
expectations ahead of time.
 Students will have multiple grades entered within each progress
period (twice a quarter).
 Grades will not be mass entered just before conclusion of said
grading period.
 Graded work will be completely and adequately assessed,
returned to students, and submitted on [the online grading tool]
within the given grade deadlines.
 All classroom materials will be prepared before class begins each
day.
 All district required close reads will be satisfactorily completed
within the required timeframe and ALL required paperwork will be
completed by teacher.
 Teacher will attend all scheduled meetings as planned
(emergency situations are exceptions) and on time.
 Teacher lesson plans will be submitted by 8:00 am every Monday
(or first day of week).
 Teacher will indicate what is being planned and assessed (if
necessary each day) each unit.
 Teacher will indicate standards and objections for all chapters (or
units or similar concept).
5
 All standards and objectives for all classes will be known and
posted.
 Classroom rules will be posted and referred to as needed.
 Classroom management rules and expectations will be presented
at the beginning grading period for all classes taught; they will be
referred to as situations arise.
Braaksma did not believe she needed the IAP and refused to sign the document.
Still, she was given a copy and told she would be held accountable for improving
in the outlined areas, regardless of her lack of signature. She was expected to
begin working on the plan immediately. The written plan states, “Will meet and
discuss during 2019–2020 academic year. Satisfactory progress must be
achieved to maintain employment . . . for 2020 and beyond.” According to
Braaksma, neither the principal nor the superintendent discussed the plan with her
again during the 2018–2019 school year.
During this time, another administrative staff change occurred. James Craig
took over as the superintendent beginning with the 2019–2020 school year. He
and De Zeeuw scheduled a meeting with Braaksma to revisit the IAP; it took place
in Craig’s office on August 21—a couple of days before students returned to class.
De Zeeuw began the meeting by reading the bulleted points from the plan out loud.
Braaksma spoke up several times. De Zeeuw and Craig testified she was
interrupting and denigrating the plan, while Braaksma viewed her statements as
interjections because she wanted clarifications and explanations about specific
points of the plan and what she was supposed to be doing. According to
Braaksma, she was never told she could ask questions once De Zeeuw finished
reading the plan. Eventually, Craig became agitated and asked Braaksma, “Do I
need to ask for your resignation now?” When she persisted, he shouted at her to
6
get out and ended the meeting. Braaksma spoke with Craig in the hallway later
and told him she intended to follow the plan. Craig shared this information with De
Zeeuw by email.
As part of being on the IAP during the 2019–2020 school year, Braaksma
was supposed to be formally evaluated three times. The first of these evaluations
was supposed to take place by October 31. It never occurred. According to
Braaksma, she asked De Zeeuw about meeting to discuss expectations leading
up to her first scheduled observation, but the meeting never took place. Then, on
Friday, October 11, Braaksma encountered De Zeeuw in the supply closet and
again asked about the IAP. De Zeeuw provided no substantive response, so
Braaksma went to Craig to tell him about her difficulty getting information from
De Zeeuw. Craig listened and then asked her to return to his office at 3:30 p.m.
When Braaksma arrived, Craig led her to the board room, where De Zeeuw
was waiting. Then Craig told her, “We’ve done as much as we can with you,” and
presented her with a separation and release agreement. The agreement was for
Braaksma to resign, and she would have been paid and continued to receive
insurance for rest of the school year. She was given twenty-one days to decide
whether to sign it, and Braaksma testified she decided to take the document home
to speak with her family and an attorney. De Zeeuw testified that Craig told
Braaksma, “One way or another you won’t be here Monday. You can agree to
this. If not you’re on paid leave until the due date of the agreement. You have 21
days.” Braaksma did not recall being told she was on administrative leave.
On Monday, October 14, Braaksma reported to work as usual; she believed
she was still under contract and did not want to be subject to allegations she was
7
in breach. Craig noticed Braaksma was in her classroom and went in to ask her
why she was there. De Zeeuw entered shortly after, and Craig instructed him to
call the sheriff’s office to have Braaksma removed from the school. The school
was then put in lockdown.2 Braaksma refused to leave until she had something in
writing that she was not supposed to be teaching, which Craig then produced for
her. It stated:
You are hereby notified that you are on paid administrative
leave from your teaching and extra-curricular duties. Further
information will be presented as to the status of your employment at
Sibley-Ocheyedan Schools as high school Spanish teacher and
International Club sponsor.
You are not to be on school grounds unless you are returning
the signed release agreement you were presented with on Friday,
October 11th, 2019. A substitute will be provided for your classes.
Braaksma did not take the offer to resign from her position.
On November 13, Craig notified Braaksma that he was recommending to
the Board that her teaching contract be terminated immediately. Craig provided
four reasons for his recommendation:
1. An intensive assistance program was provided to you and
you refused to comply with the program with regard to grading.
2. Failed to teach appropriate to grade level.
3. Failed to meet Teaching Standard 8.
4. Students in Spanish II have not received appropriate
instruction.
Five days later, Craig made a written recommendation to the Board to end
Braaksma’s contract. Braaksma exercised her right to request a private hearing,
and it took place over two days—on December 16, 2019, and January 8, 2020.
2At the hearing before the Board, De Zeeuw testified it “wasn’t a lockdown” but
admitted he made an announcement over the loudspeaker, stating, “Until further
notice, staff, please keep the students in their rooms.”
8
Following the conclusion of the hearing, the Board issued a written decision the
same day. In its entirety, it states:
Pursuant to Iowa Code 279.16, and based on the evidence in
the record of the private hearing conducted on December 16, 2019
and January 8, 2020, the Board of Directors of the Sibley-Ocheyedan
Community School District direct that Danna Braaksma’s continuing
teaching contract with the Sibley-Ocheyedan Community School
District be terminated effective immediately.[3]
After receiving the decision, Braaksma petitioned for judicial review, asking
for the decision of the Board to be reversed. She argued the Board’s finding of
“just cause” to terminate her teaching contract was not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence; was in violation of the statutory provisions
governing teacher performance review in chapter 284; and was made in violation
of both District policy and her contract, which require the District to provide an IAP.
On judicial review, the district court affirmed the Board’s decision to
terminate Braaksma’s contract. Citing Iowa Code section 279.27, which states, “A
teacher may be discharged at any time during the contract year for just cause,” the
district court concluded the Board was allowed to terminate Braaksma’s contract
for deficient performance. The court considered the record made at the hearing
before the Board and concluded that a preponderance of evidence in the record
supported the four reasons the superintendent gave for terminating Braaksma’s
3 A 2017 change in Iowa Code section 279.18 suggests the Board is no longer
required to make fact findings as part of its decision and ruling. See 2017 Iowa
Acts ch. 2, § 34; compare Iowa Code § 279.18(2) (2016) (“In [proceedings for]
judicial review, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, the court
shall give weight to the fact findings of the board; but shall not be bound by them.”
(emphasis added)), with id. § 279.18(2) (2019) (“In [proceedings for] judicial
review, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, the court shall give
weight to the decision of the board, but shall not be bound by it.” (emphasis
added)).
9
contract and that those reasons constituted deficient performance of her teaching
job. The court considered section 284.8, which requires that school districts “shall
be prepared to offer an [IAP]” if a teacher is found not to meet the teaching
standards of section 284.3 and the Board’s written policy that a teacher “placed on
intensive assistance . . . will have a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of 12
months to implement change.” The district court recognized Braaksma was not
given six months on the plan but concluded the fact was inapposite because
section 279.27 allows for discharge “at any time for just cause.”
Braaksma appeals.
II. Standard of Review.
We review the school board’s termination of Braaksma’s contract for
correction of errors at law. See Bd. of Dirs. of Ames Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Cullinan,
745 N.W.2d 487, 493 (Iowa 2008). We glean some evidence of the Board’s
determinations of credibility from its ultimate decision, and we give those
determinations weight. See Iowa Code § 279.18(2) (“[E]specially when
considering the credibility of witnesses, the court shall give weight to the decision
of the board, but shall not be bound by it.”). But, as always, it is the role of the
court—not the Board—to determine the meaning of statutes. See Martinek v.
Belmond-Klemme Cmty. Sch. Dist., 760 N.W.2d 454, 456 (Iowa 2009).
III. Analysis.
Braaksma contends that the Board’s decision to terminate her contract
should be reversed because she was entitled to participate in an IAP4 that adhered
4 “Intensive assistance” is statutorily defined as “the provision of organizational
support and technical assistance to teachers, other than beginning teachers, for
10
to the statutory and contractual requirements as well as the policies adopted by
the Board. She argues that because she was not allowed to do so, the termination
of her contract is not proper.
De Zeeuw concluded Braaksma was not meeting the expectation of six of
the eight Iowa teaching standards, which are codified in Iowa Code
section 284.3(1)(a) through (h). Based on this conclusion, De Zeeuw had to
recommend that Braaksma participate in an IAP and Braaksma had to do so. See
Iowa Code § 284.8(2) (“If . . . an evaluator determines . . . [a] teacher is not meeting
district expectations under the Iowa teaching standards . . . , the evaluator shall
. . . recommend to the district the teacher participate in an [IAP].” (emphasis
added)), (3) (“A teacher who is not meeting the applicable standards . . . shall
participate in an [IAP].” (emphasis added)). Similarly, the District had to have a
program to offer Braaksma. See id. § 284.8(2) (“All school districts shall be
prepared to offer an [IAP].”). Notably, the District would receive moneys
appropriated for teacher professional development if the Board applied to the
department of education under its participation requirements. See id.
§ 284.4(1)(b)(2) (including the requirement to “[m]onitor the evaluation
requirements of [chapter 284] to ensure evaluations are conducted in a fair and
consistent manner throughout the school district or agency”).
To meet the State’s directive under chapter 284, the District developed
policies. The District’s policy related to IAPs provides that the teacher and principal
“will mutually develop an [IAP]” and the teacher “will have a minimum of 6 months
the remediation of identified teaching and classroom management concerns for a
period not to exceed twelve months.” Iowa Code § 284.2(6).
11
and a maximum of 12 months to implement the changes.” This policy applied to
Braaksma; her contract states, “The official school policies, calendar, and Master
Contract are part of this contract.” Still, the district court found “[t]he Board did not
dispute that Braaksma was terminated without re-evaluation under [section]
284.8(4) or that Braaksma had no input or assistance from administration in her
intensive plan.” Yet, the statute is clear. “Following a teacher’s participation in an
[IAP], the teacher shall be reevaluated to determine whether the teacher
successfully completed the [IAP] and is meeting . . . the applicable Iowa teaching
standards . . . .” Id. § 284.8(4). “If the teacher did not successfully complete the
[IAP] or continues not to meet the applicable Iowa teaching standards,” then the
Board has the option to “[t]erminate the teacher’s contract immediately [for just
cause] pursuant to section 279.27.” Id. at § 284.8(4), (a).
Here, it is undisputed that Braaksma was not given six months to implement
the changes outlined in her IAP. The plan began on April 25, 2019, and Craig
placed her on administrative leave on October 11, 2019. Even if we count the
summer—at which time there were no classes to be taught, so Braaksma could
not actively work on implementing the plan—less than six months passed between
the two dates.
The district court decided the District’s failure to allow Braaksma the
minimum six months of participation was not controlling because section 279.27
allows for discharge for just cause “at any time.” Putting it another way, the Board
argues termination of Braaksma’s contract was proper because the “intensive
assistance placement of Braaksma on April 25, 2019 and completion of the
intensive assistance is not a condition precedent to a chapter 279.29 discharge.”
12
But when a teacher is discharged for failure to meet the teaching standards (i.e.,
deficient performance), we believe it is a condition precedent. Otherwise the
mandatory language within section 284.8—that if the teacher is not meeting
teaching standards, the school district “shall . . . offer,” the evaluator “shall . . .
recommend,” and the teacher “shall participate in an [IAP]”—becomes
meaningless. See Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The
Interpretation of Legal Texts 167 (2012) (“Perhaps no interpretive fault is more
common than the failure to follow the whole-text canon, which calls on the judicial
interpreter to consider the entire text, in view of its structure and of the physical
and logical relation of its many parts.”); see also Iowa Code § 4.1(30)(a) (“The word
‘shall’ imposes a duty.”).
In its decision, the district court concluded there were two types of “just
cause” for which a teacher could be fired for their own actions5 under
section 279.29—those of “misconduct” and those of “deficient job performance.”
But the cases considered by the district court that involved an immediate firing of
a teacher for “deficient job performance” were decided before 2001, when the
legislature established chapter 284. See 2001 Iowa Acts ch. 161, § 1.
Section 284.1 established a “student achievement and teacher quality program,”
with two of the “major elements” being “[p]rofessional development designed to
directly support best teaching practices” and “[e]valuation of teachers against the
Iowa teaching standards.” 2001 Iowa Acts ch. 161, § 2. The teaching standards
of section 284.3(1) were established at the same time. See 2001 Iowa Acts
5The district court contrasted these with “legitimate consideration[s] relating to the
school district’s personnel and budget needs.”
13
ch. 161, § 4. The IAP was not added until 2002. See 2002 Iowa Acts ch. 1152, §
17. And school districts were originally given until July 1, 2004, to “be prepared to
offer an intensive assistance program.” Id. In 2003, the legislature extended the
deadline to July 1, 2005. 2003 Iowa Acts ch. 180, § 47.
At oral argument, the Board contended that it can terminate a teacher for
just cause even if the teacher is on an IAP. And, if the reasons for the termination
are not related to the performance issues listed in the IAP, we agree the Board has
that option. Based on our interpretation of section 284.8, the Board would still
have the power to immediately discharge a teacher for just cause under
section 279.27 for reasons relating to misconduct. But if the teacher is attempting
to improve under an IAP, we believe the interplay between sections 279.27 and
284.8 impacts when a teacher can be terminated. Thus, when the teacher is
discharged for reasons related to the Iowa teaching standards, the need to offer
an IAP—as section 284.8 mandates—cannot be ignored. And while chapter 284
does not set specific timing deadlines to achieve compliance, the District cannot
ignore its own policies about that program. Here, the District’s policies, which were
incorporated into Braaksma’s teaching contract, promised her at least six months
on the program. After that time, she was to be reevaluated. Then, if she was still
failing to meet the standards, she could be fired—under both the statute and the
District’s policy. See Iowa Code § 284.8(4)(a).
In its appellate brief, the Board implies Braaksma was not entitled to spend
six months on the IAP because she refused to engage with or participate in the
plan for improvement that was provided to her. We understand this implication to
suggest Braaksma was fired for insubordination rather than failure to achieve the
14
goals of the IAP. But insubordination was not one of the reasons the
superintendent gave for terminating Braaksma’s contract. And “[o]ur review is
‘limited to the specific reasons stated in the superintendent’s notice of
recommendation of termination.’” Mackey v. Newell-Providence Cmty. Sch. Dist.,
483 N.W.2d 5, 8 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (quoting Iowa Code § 279.16).
With these statutes defining our course, we reverse the district court’s and
the Board’s decisions. The termination of Braaksma’s contract violated
section 284.8, the terms of the contract itself, and the District’s policies.
IV. Conclusion.
The District was required to offer Braaksma an IAP once it determined she
was failing to meet the statutory teaching standards. But it ultimately discharged
her contract because of deficient performance without offering the program in
adherence with contractual, statutory, and policy provisions, so the discharge was
improper under section 284.8. As a result, we reverse the ruling of the district court
and the Board’s decision terminating Braaksma’s contract and reinstate Braaksma
to her former position according to the terms of her contract. See Munger v. Jesup
Cmty. Sch. Dist., 325 N.W.2d 377, 381 (Iowa 1982).
REVERSED.