Durant’s high school principal allowed students to graduate despite lacking the required credits, changed special education learning plans without consent and taught classes she wasn’t qualified to teach, according to the superintendent.

Duane Bark, Durant (Iowa) School District superintendent, testified Monday before an administrative law judge that principal Monica Rouse, who was placed on paid leave in September, doctored the records of at least 10 students during the 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years.

When approached about the concerns, Rouse changed her story numerous times and lied, Bark said.

Evidence presented by Rouse’s attorneys painted a different picture, however.

Bark was the only person called to testify Monday during the hearing regarding the possible termination of Rouse’s contract. Larry Bartlett, an administrative law judge assigned to case, will listen to evidence from both sides and, within 10 days, issue a nonbinding decision as to whether there is just cause to fire Rouse. It is unclear how many days the hearing will last, but a room is reserved through Friday at the Mississippi Bend Area Education Agency in Bettendorf.

About 20 people showed up, including Rouse’s husband and children, but no school board members.

Both sides took less than an hour combined to present opening statements.

Kevin Halligan, attorney for the Durant district, called Bark as the first witness and, for nearly two hours, asked for details about the 10 students. Some got credit but lacked the paperwork to show they took the course. Others had required courses waived or graduated despite not having enough credits.

Rouse taught one student an independent economics course, although she’s only licensed to teach English. Another student, who transferred into the district, completed a sociology course in his previous district, which was then counted as the equivalent of Durant’s world history class.

Bark said Rouse was in charge of making sure students met graduation requirements and teachers carried the proper licenses. In addition, she oversaw the special education and alternative high school programs.

“Monica Rouse was charged with those responsibilities,” Halligan said. “Rouse breached that trust by not upholding the procedures and policies of Durant High School. She failed the teachers, students, the superintendent, the school district and the community itself.”

However, board policy holds the superintendent responsible to ensure high school students complete the necessary coursework to graduate. When he read the policy back to Cathy Cartee, Rouse’s attorney, he said he had delegated the task to Rouse.

“Where does it say that it should be the duty of the principal?” Cartee said during cross-examination. “It says it’s your responsibility. It doesn’t say you can delegate it to someone else.”

Cartee said Rouse voiced concerns numerous times that the district was in violation of federal and state laws. The first time regarded Durant limiting how many postsecondary credits students can take, which is against Iowa law.

The second complaint came when the district’s only special education teacher resigned less than a month before the end of last school year. Because the district didn’t have a fully licensed special education teacher, it was in violation of the learning plans for all special education students, Cartee said.

“Monica said, ’I’m done. I’m calling the state,’ and he walked her out the door,” Cartee said. “I’m trying to figure out why Monica would do all of this. I could never come up with a reason why. We wouldn’t be here if Monica didn’t stand up to him because Sept. 15 she said, ‘I’m calling the state.’ He would rather place blame on Monica. After all, he signed every one of those students’ diploma(s). The buck stops with Mr. Bark, but he would rather blame it on Mrs. Rouse.”

Cartee questioned the role of Jay Weakland, who Bark hired in August 2008. She asked Bark if Weakland’s unfamiliarity with the student data system could cause him to make mistakes inputting credit information. When asked, Bark said he had never seen Weakland input information, nor had he asked Weakland if he had possibly made any mistakes.

When Cartee inquired about Bark’s knowledge of special education laws, he struggled to describe and explain the requirements of several parts of the program, including 504 accommodations and the alternative program.

Cartee questioned Bark for nearly five hours Monday. Near the end of the afternoon, Bark had moments where he was visibly frustrated and could not recall numerous details, such as whether he kept his handwritten notes from interviews he had pertaining to his investigation of Rouse.

Bark will go back on the stand when the hearing resumes at 9 a.m. today.