By February 2023, Dallas ISD had not communicated how it intended to proceed in light of the Commissioner’s decision. If it wanted to proceed with my termination, it would require I be given a hearing to challenge the credibility of the statements, cross-examine the six students, and question the teacher involved, the assistant principals, principal, PSO supervising investigator, and the CHCM regarding their below criticisms.
The assistant principal made the following declaration:
“18. Based on the information the students conveyed to me on April 8, 2022, I believed that Mr. Bravo made racially-tinged and inappropriate statements in his classroom and denigrated the students’ community, their families, and their ability to be successful in life. I believed the comments the students attributed to Mr. Bravo and their descriptions of their experiences, reflected in the statements contained in Exhibits 1 and 3, were unsuitable for the school environment and not conducive to promoting students’ dedication to their education. In my years of experience as a teacher and administrator, I had never previously received a report, or otherwise heard, of a teacher making such disparaging comments to students.” (DISD App. 398–409)
A second assistant principal made the following declaration:
“9. As an Assistant Principal, I believe the kind of statements the students reported Mr. Bravo made in class are harmful to students and contrary to the mission of Dallas ISD to educate kids and prepare them for future success. No teacher should speak this way to students, and if the District learns a teacher has done so, it must act.” (DISD App. 651–655)
The principal made the following declaration:
“37. I believed the six students’ statements that Mr. Bravo made inappropriate comments were credible and believed Mr. Bravo’s conduct violated Standard 3.2. I felt that Mr. Bravo took hope away from students by making statements that where the students came from or who their parents were made it impossible for the students to climb out of the situation they were born into.” (DISD App. 480–500)
The PSO Supervising Investigator made the following declaration:
“35. When I reviewed the Administrator’s Investigation Report and documentation in this matter, I weighed the six people that said the allegations occurred with Mr. Bravo’s statement that the allegations are untrue. To me, the weight and preponderance of the evidence properly led to a substantiated finding of a violation of Standard 3.2 of the Educators’ Code of Ethics, in DH (Exhibit).” (DISD App. 308–320)
The Chief of Human Capital Management as a member of the District LRC, had already accepted the allegations without proof and went even further. He expanded his testimony to say:
“46. I was surprised and concerned regarding Mr. Bravo’s statements, particularly Mr. Bravo’s level of ignorance regarding his own students and the Quintanilla MS community. These actions are not what the District expects of any employee. These statements seem to be absolutely the opposite of what Dallas ISD wants teachers to be teaching students. Instead of motivating students to learn and grow, it sends the message: why bother, your fate is already sealed because of who your parents are and where you come from. This is the exact opposite of Dallas ISD’s educational mission. Based on my observations and participation at the May 25, 2022 Legal Review Committee meeting, the other Committee members were also very concerned that a teacher would make such negative comments to students which disparaged students’ race, color, economic status, parents, and where they lived.” (DISD App. 005–034)
Surprisingly, in spite of all the above alleged concerns, on February 24, 2023, the District emailed me a new contract for a similar teaching position at Comstock MS with no reprimands, disciplinary action, or corrective action required, and with six months back pay and benefits.
That Dallas ISD would produce so much damaging testimony against me to misrepresent their discrimination, protect the District administration, and justify its recommendation for termination, then reinstate me should be very disturbing to every parent. Why, after providing so much testimony alleging child abuse, was I suddenly cleared to return to continue teaching as if nothing had happened? What happened to all the concerns expressed that I had intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treated students in a manner that adversely affected or endangered their learning, physical health, mental health, or safety? Was my reinstatement vindication of my innocence or litigation damage control? Was the District really willing to take this step to continue misrepresenting their conduct, even if putting more students at risk of my alleged child abuse? Sadly, it was the second. Officially, the District claimed that they still believed the student allegations and administration reporting, but that my reinstatement was a good business decision to avoid the cost of proceeding with my termination. If it is to be believed, it means Dallas ISD is willing to give a teacher they allegedly believed was a child abuser access to more children, risk their safety, and violate its standards mandated by the Educator’s Code of Ethics, in order to continue concealing its conduct under the guise of cost saving, and that is a terrifying possibility.
I viewed being reassigned to Comstock as another District tactic to pressure me to resign. My travel time to the campus increased from twenty minutes to forty. And when I reported to the campus, a teaching position did not exist, as three-fourths of the school year had already passed. Upon returning, the District continued its discriminatory conduct by also refusing to expunge, redact, or note my exoneration in my personnel record, thus making my reintegration as a teacher in good standing very difficult. The District also required I overcome each department’s objections to my credential reinstatement requests without HCM’s facilitation.
Ultimately, in light of the reinstatement, the District’s belief of my alleged child abuse
and their desire to protect students cannot credibly serve as the reason for the proposed
termination. Therefore, Dallas ISD’s proffered explanations are false and unworthy of
credence.