Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grievance Outcome topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hutto ISD board denies level‑3 grievance, upholds termination of probationary teacher
Summary
After a May 14, 2026 open hearing, the Hutto ISD Board of Trustees voted to deny a level‑3 grievance and uphold the district's decision to terminate a probationary teacher. District officials cited repeated classroom management concerns; the teacher's representative called the process flawed and vowed to contest it.
The Hutto ISD Board of Trustees voted by voice on May 14, 2026 to deny a level‑3 grievance and uphold the district's earlier decision to terminate a probationary contract. Board President Amy English moved to deny the appeal and the motion passed after a second; trustees confirmed the vote applied to a consolidated set of grievances the board had combined under policy DGBA.
Dr. Wasser, executive director of talent management for Hutto ISD, told the board the hearing concerned "performance documentation" and that "the decision to terminate a probationary contract cannot be overturned." She described multiple supports provided during the school year — coaching, team teaching and growth plans beginning Aug. 15 — and said the record included walk‑throughs and other observations documenting recurring classroom‑management and student‑engagement problems that informed the district's recommendation to end the probationary contract.
The grievant's representative, Chris Tanatha, argued the district's process was flawed and urged the board to reverse the decision. Tanatha asserted administrators produced inaccurate or retaliatory walk‑throughs and sought to invalidate summative evaluations and the growth plan; he said student performance data showed substantial gains under the teacher and therefore the evaluations were legally deficient. "District deliberately violated the law, of code 21.351 a 1 and 21.351 a 2," the representative said during the presentation.
After brief board discussion and clarification from legal counsel about probationary contracts, the board moved, seconded and voted to deny the appeal. The board president declared the motion passed and adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
