Letter of Reprimand, Scenario 1: Mr. Davis, Oak Ridge Middle School (unprofessional communication)
As a principal, you may encounter a situation in which coaching, feedback and professional support are not sufficient. Analyze the personnel scenario and prepare a Letter of Reprimand appropriate for placement in a personnel file. You must identify and reference the applicable board policy and explain how it guides your decision.
Scenario: Over two months, Mr. Davis had three documented incidents of unprofessional, confrontational communication with colleagues. (1) In a department meeting he interrupted a colleague repeatedly and said, “You obviously don’t understand what you’re talking about”; the principal met with him and reviewed expectations. (2) He emailed a colleague, “Maybe if you actually did your job, I wouldn’t have to keep fixing your mistakes”; the colleague reported it, and in a second meeting Mr. Davis acknowledged the email was inappropriate and agreed to communicate more professionally. (3) Three weeks later, in a team meeting, he said, “I’m tired of having to deal with people who don’t know what they’re doing”; the department chair documented and reported it. The behavior is inconsistent with district expectations for employee conduct.
Complete all nine components:
- Analyze the situation (concern; conduct or performance; seriousness; ongoing; prior interventions; evidence).
- Identify the applicable board policy (number, title, sections, expectations) and explain how it guides your decision.
- Identify existing documentation and why it is relevant.
- Determine the appropriate administrative action (interventions, severity, frequency, policy, employee rights, due process, consistency, HR procedures).
- Determine what should and should not be placed in the personnel file, and who maintains it.
- Draft the Letter of Reprimand.
- Explain how you would conduct the meeting with the employee.
- Identify when you would involve district HR.
- Write a 1–2 page final reflection on making difficult personnel decisions.
Include a cover sheet; put questions in bold with responses underneath in 12-point Times New Roman; use the textbook, required resources and principles of educational leadership; analyze what happens when administrators follow or skip steps; include a reference page.
Verbal reminder of expectations
Documented conference; employee acknowledgment
Written Letter of Reprimand placed in file
Use your own district’s policy: this example cites model policies from a district that uses NEOLA’s widely adopted policy manual (Policy 3210, Staff Ethics; Policy 3139, Staff Discipline; and Policy 8320, Personnel Files, as published at go.neola.com). Your assignment requires the policies from your district’s board policy manual, so replace the numbers, titles and language with yours and check your collective bargaining agreement.
Model assignment
Original example for study purposes (about 2,350 words). Add your textbook and weekly resources where marked.
1. Analyze the Situation
What is the personnel concern? Mr. Davis has repeatedly communicated with colleagues in a disrespectful, confrontational and demeaning manner, in public meetings and in writing. The comments target colleagues’ competence and undermine a collaborative professional culture.
Conduct or performance? This is primarily a conduct issue. The concern is not that Mr. Davis lacks the skill to teach or plan; it is that he chose to behave in ways that violate standards of professional behavior. Conduct issues are typically addressed through progressive discipline, while performance issues are addressed through evaluation and improvement plans.
How serious is it? Each statement on its own is a moderate concern rather than gross misconduct; there was no threat, harassment based on a protected characteristic or harm to students. However, the pattern is serious because it damages collegial trust, can create a hostile environment for colleagues and has continued after two interventions.
Is it ongoing? Yes. Three incidents occurred within two months, including one after Mr. Davis acknowledged the problem and agreed to change.
Previous interventions: a verbal reminder of expectations after Incident 1 and a second conference after Incident 2, in which he acknowledged the email was inappropriate.
Evidence: the principal’s notes from the department meeting and both conferences, the email itself, the colleague’s report, the department chair’s written documentation of Incident 3 and Mr. Davis’s verbal acknowledgment (documented in the conference notes).
2. Identify the Applicable Board Policy
Policy 3210, Staff Ethics. This model policy states that professional staff should “maintain high standards in their working relationships,” requires staff to recognize the basic dignity of all persons with whom they interact in the performance of their duties (Standard 1) and to exercise due care to protect the mental and physical safety of students, colleagues and subordinates (Standard 3) (Policy 3210, n.d.). Mr. Davis’s public statements that colleagues “don’t know what they’re doing” fail to respect colleagues’ dignity and create a demeaning environment.
Policy 3139, Staff Discipline. This policy states that the Board “retains the right and the responsibility to manage the work force,” that disciplinary action “shall be in proportion to the employee’s offense or misconduct” and that it must be consistent with “appropriate procedural and substantive due process, State law, and/or the specific provisions of any applicable collective bargaining agreement” (Policy 3139, n.d.).
How the policies guide my decision. Policy 3210 establishes that respectful communication with colleagues is a district expectation, not a matter of personal style, so the behavior is a policy violation rather than a personality conflict. Policy 3139 requires that my response be proportionate and follow due process. Because the conduct is moderate but repeated after two informal interventions, proportionality points to the next step in progressive discipline, a written reprimand, rather than suspension or a more severe action. The due process requirement means I must give Mr. Davis notice of the specific concern, the evidence and an opportunity to respond, and I must follow any steps in the collective bargaining agreement, such as the right to union representation in disciplinary meetings.
3. Identify Existing Documentation
- Incident 1: principal’s notes summarizing the department meeting and the follow-up conversation reviewing expectations.
- Incident 2: a copy of the email, the colleague’s written report and the principal’s conference summary noting Mr. Davis’s acknowledgment.
- Incident 3: the department chair’s written account and any witness statements.
- Policy and expectations documents: the staff handbook section on professional communication and the policies above.
This documentation is relevant because it establishes a timeline, shows that Mr. Davis knew the expectations, demonstrates that he received two opportunities to correct his behavior and supports the factual basis for discipline. Without it, a reprimand could be challenged as arbitrary or as based on hearsay. If the notes from Incident 1 or the conference after Incident 2 were never written down, the principal should document them now from memory, dated accurately as after-the-fact summaries, and recognize that weaker documentation reduces the strength of the case.
4. Determine the Appropriate Administrative Action
I believe a written Letter of Reprimand is the appropriate action. The behavior is repeated (three incidents in two months), it continued after two documented interventions and Mr. Davis acknowledged knowing the expectations, so further informal coaching alone is unlikely to work. At the same time, the conduct does not involve threats, discrimination or harm to students, so suspension would be disproportionate under Policy 3139.
Before issuing the letter, I would (a) review the collective bargaining agreement for required procedures, such as notice of the right to representation and timelines; (b) consult district HR to confirm the action is consistent with how similar cases have been handled; (c) investigate Incident 3 by speaking with the department chair and any witnesses and giving Mr. Davis an opportunity to share his account; and (d) consider whether there are underlying issues, such as workload conflicts or personal stress, that could be addressed through the Employee Assistance Program. These steps protect due process, the “just cause” expectation that discipline be fair, investigated and consistent, and the employee’s rights. If I skipped them and issued the letter immediately, the union could grieve the discipline, a later adverse action might be overturned and staff might view the principal as acting on emotion.
5. Determine What Should Be Placed in the Personnel File
Include: the signed Letter of Reprimand; Mr. Davis’s signed acknowledgment of receipt (which does not mean he agrees); and any written response he chooses to submit. Under model Policy 8320, the district maintains “a single central file,” records relate to an employee’s conformance with district rules and job performance, and the employee has access to the file upon request (Policy 8320, n.d.).
Why: these documents formally record the corrective action, the expectations and the consequences, and they provide the foundation for future progressive discipline if needed.
Do not include: the principal’s informal working notes and drafts, unverified rumors or opinions, colleagues’ private messages about Mr. Davis and medical or EAP information. Supporting evidence, such as the email and the chair’s report, should be kept in a separate investigative file maintained by HR or the principal according to district procedures and referenced in the letter.
Who maintains it: the official personnel file is maintained by the central office (under model Policy 8320, the Superintendent, through Human Resources). The principal provides the signed letter to HR for filing and keeps only what district procedures allow at the building level.
6. Draft the Letter of Reprimand
Oak Ridge Middle School
[District Name] | [Address]
[Date]
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
Mr. [First Name] Davis
[Subject] Teacher, Oak Ridge Middle School
RE: Letter of Reprimand: Unprofessional Communication With Colleagues
Dear Mr. Davis:
The purpose of this letter is to issue a formal reprimand for repeated unprofessional and disrespectful communication with colleagues, in violation of Board Policy 3210, Staff Ethics, and the professional conduct expectations in the staff handbook.
This letter follows three documented incidents. On [date], during a department meeting, you repeatedly interrupted a colleague and stated in front of other staff, “You obviously don’t understand what you’re talking about.” We met on [date] to review the expectations for professional and respectful communication. On [date], you sent an email to a colleague stating, “Maybe if you actually did your job, I wouldn’t have to keep fixing your mistakes.” We met on [date], and you acknowledged that the email was inappropriate and agreed to communicate more professionally. On [date], during a team meeting, you stated to a colleague, “I’m tired of having to deal with people who don’t know what they’re doing.” This incident was documented by the department chair. On [date], we met with [union representative, if present] to review these facts, and you were given the opportunity to respond.
Board Policy 3210 requires staff to maintain high standards in their working relationships and to recognize the basic dignity of all persons with whom they interact in the performance of their duties. Your statements were demeaning to colleagues and inconsistent with these expectations.
Effective immediately, you are expected to:
- Communicate with colleagues respectfully in meetings, emails and all professional interactions, including when you disagree.
- Raise concerns about colleagues’ work privately and constructively with the colleague, your department chair or administration, rather than through public criticism.
- Meet with me [biweekly] for the next [six weeks] to review professional communication and progress.
- [Optional, if agreed] Complete [district training on professional communication or conflict resolution] by [date].
Resources available to support you include [the instructional coach/mentor] and the Employee Assistance Program at [contact information].
Please understand that further incidents of unprofessional communication may result in additional disciplinary action, up to and including suspension or other action consistent with Board Policy 3139, Staff Discipline, the collective bargaining agreement and state law.
This letter will be placed in your personnel file. You have the right to submit a written response, which will be attached to this letter. Your signature below acknowledges receipt of this letter and does not indicate agreement with its contents.
Sincerely,
[Principal’s Name]
Principal, Oak Ridge Middle School
Employee signature: ______________________ Date: __________
cc: Human Resources (personnel file); [union representative, if required]
7. Explain What You Would Communicate to the Employee
Introducing the purpose: I would schedule a private meeting, notify Mr. Davis in advance that it concerns a disciplinary matter and of his right to representation if the contract provides it, and begin calmly: “The purpose of this meeting is to discuss continued concerns about professional communication and to give you a formal letter of reprimand.”
Evidence: I would review the three incidents factually, with dates and exact quotations, and refer to the documentation and our previous conversations.
Policy: I would explain that Policy 3210 requires respectful working relationships and that Policy 3139 guides proportionate, progressive discipline, so this is the next step after two informal conversations.
Expectations: I would walk through each expectation in the letter and ask him to restate them to ensure understanding.
Employee response: I would invite him to share his perspective and listen without interrupting, noting any new information. If he raises legitimate concerns, such as frustration with workload distribution, I would address them separately while making clear they do not excuse the behavior. I would remind him he may submit a written response.
Next steps: I would explain the follow-up meetings, the supports available and the consequences of further incidents, and ask him to sign the acknowledgment.
Professionalism and confidentiality: I would maintain a calm tone, avoid sarcasm or personal remarks, keep the meeting private and share information only with those who need to know, such as HR. I would not discuss the discipline with the colleagues involved, beyond assuring them that the concern has been addressed.
8. Identify When You Would Involve District HR
Yes, I would involve HR before issuing the letter, after gathering the facts from Incident 3. I would provide a summary of the three incidents, copies of the documentation, a description of previous interventions and my proposed letter. I would seek guidance on whether the letter is consistent with district practice and the collective bargaining agreement, whether union notification or representation is required, the correct format and filing procedure and whether any other concerns (for example, a harassment complaint or a pattern involving a protected characteristic) would require a formal investigation. I would contact HR again immediately if the behavior escalated to threats, harassment or retaliation against the colleagues who reported him, or if Mr. Davis filed a grievance.
9. Final Reflection
This scenario taught me that difficult personnel decisions require principals to separate their feelings from the facts and to rely on policy, evidence and process. The most difficult part was balancing compassion for a teacher who may be experienced, stressed or frustrated with my responsibility to protect a respectful, collaborative workplace for everyone. It would be easy either to ignore the behavior to avoid conflict or to react angrily after the third incident. Board policy provided the structure I needed: Policy 3210 defined the expectation, and Policy 3139 required a proportionate, due-process-based response, which led me to a written reprimand rather than either inaction or excessive punishment.
Documentation was essential. Because the first two conversations and Mr. Davis’s acknowledgment were recorded, the reprimand rests on facts rather than impressions, and he cannot reasonably claim he was unaware of the expectations. If I had not documented those steps, I would have had to start the process over, and colleagues would have continued to experience the behavior. Due process also changed how I approached the decision: giving Mr. Davis notice, evidence and an opportunity to respond respects his rights and makes the outcome more fair and defensible. These principles align with the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders, which call on leaders to act ethically and professionally and to build the professional capacity of school personnel and a professional community of trust (National Policy Board for Educational Administration [NPBEA], 2015).
Principals balance accountability and support by being clear about expectations and consequences while offering resources such as coaching, mentoring and the Employee Assistance Program. To avoid emotional decisions, I would wait until I had gathered the facts, consult HR, use a written template and ask myself whether I would take the same action with any other employee. Consistency matters because inconsistent discipline erodes trust, invites grievances and can expose the district to discrimination claims. District HR serves as a partner who ensures legal compliance, consistency across schools and correct documentation. As a future principal, I will document every conversation about expectations promptly, learn my district’s policies and contract before problems arise and address concerns early, when coaching can still be effective, so that formal discipline is rarely necessary.
Effective vs. Ineffective Administrative Practice
If the principal follows each step, the teacher receives clear notice and support, colleagues see that concerns are taken seriously and the district’s action is likely to withstand a grievance. If the principal skips steps, for example by issuing a reprimand without investigating Incident 3, failing to allow union representation or placing unverified complaints in the file, the discipline may be overturned, staff trust may decline and future, more serious action could be weakened because the record is flawed.
References
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders 2015. https://www.npbea.org/
Policy 3139: Staff discipline. (n.d.). In Board of Education policy manual [NEOLA model policy, adopted February 16, 2017]. https://go.neola.com/niles-oh/policy/policy-manual/po3139
Policy 3210: Staff ethics. (n.d.). In Board of Education policy manual [NEOLA model policy, adopted February 16, 2017]. https://go.neola.com/niles-oh/policy/policy-manual/po3210
Policy 8320: Personnel files. (n.d.). In Board of Education policy manual [NEOLA model policy]. https://go.neola.com/niles-oh/policy/policy-manual/po8320
[Your course textbook and weekly resources, in APA format.]
Before you submit: replace the example policies with your district’s, add a cover sheet, format questions in bold with answers below in 12-point Times New Roman and cite your course textbook in every section, as the guidelines require.
Frequently asked questions
Is unprofessional communication a conduct or performance issue?
Usually conduct. It concerns how an employee chooses to behave rather than whether they have the skills to do the job, so it is addressed through progressive discipline.
Does signing a reprimand mean the teacher agrees with it?
No. The signature acknowledges receipt only. Employees generally have the right to submit a written response that is attached to the letter in the personnel file.
More model assignments posted today
- Letter of reprimand, Scenario 2 (Ms. Reynolds)
- Sexual disorders vs. normal variation
- Exercise 10-1: The Good Soldier (OCB)
- Exercise 10-2: "Frustrated, Fired Frank"
- Harris County community health PowerPoint
- Paul Hawken on management vs. leadership