Two Seattle, Washington, special education teachers have lost in their appeal of a ten-day without pay suspension from work for insubordination in the wake of their 2008 refusal to administer state-mandated testing. In a decision handed down December 27, the Washington State Court of Appeals upheld the teacher’s suspension holding that the district’s disciplining of the teacher was not arbitrary or capricious.

FACTS:

The two elementary school teachers, Juli Griffith and Lenora Stahl-Quarto, were described in court documents as “dedicated and good at their jobs.” Both teachers taught severely disabled students. In 2008 the teachers had six state testing eligible students in their classrooms whom they refused to test. In a letter prior to their suspension, one teacher argued that testing her children would be “inauthentic” and “ridiculous” based on the severity of the disabilities. In court documents, the students in question were described as being some of the most challenged students in the Seattlepublic school environment. According to court documents, the teacher went on to characterize giving the test as “jumping through the golden WAAS (Washington Alternate Assessment System) hoop just so it appears that our school is making ‘adequate yearly progress.’” The teachers persisted in their refusal to administer the test in the face of multiple meetings and communications that informed them that their action would be regarded as insubordination.

A central question in the decision that was appealed was whether the teachers were acting on principle or based on direct requests by the parents of the students in their rooms. While in the earlier trial the teachers presented evidence that the parents did not wish their children tested, the lower court made a determination that the teachers were acting on principle. This decision was based on the fact that in all the communications with the district prior to their suspension, parent requests were never mentioned as a motive for their refusal to test.

DECISION:

In upholding the lower court’s allowance of suspension, the court began be review the holding that the teachers acted on principle rather than at parent direction. The court noted that “eventually, parents of the six students submitted written refusals. But, the misconduct occurred between the fall of 2008 and the beginning of January 2009. The first letter did not arrive until January 27. Four more arrived in February, and one came in May. None of the six letters included any indication that the parents expressed their refusal to the teachers in the fall of 2008.” Based on these facts, the court refused to disturb the lower court’s findings.

Next, the court looked at whether the teacher’s acts amounted to insubordination. According toWashingtonlaw,

a teacher is insubordinate if she willfully refuses to obey a reasonable regulation governing her conduct.

Here, because the teachers were notified in advance of their actions on numerous occasions by the district that their refusal to administer the test would be insubordination, and further, aWashingtonstate employee in charge of alternate assessments informed Quarto that the test was federally mandated, the court determined that the teachers’ actions were insubordinate.

According to Levi Pulkkinen, the SeattlePi.com writer whose article brought this matter to my attention, it is unclear whether the teachers plan to appeal this decision toWashingtonState’s Supreme Court. The teachers’ attorney did not return a request for comment on the decision.

If as a parent you have concerns about your child being required to take part in state or federally mandated testing, please contact The Law Office of Gregory R. Branch through its website, through email at gregorybranch@edrightsadvocate.com, or by phone at (714) 856-1166.