Acitelli v. Westmont Hilltop School Dist.
| Decision Date | 04 November 1974 |
| Citation | 15 Pa.Cmwlth. 214,325 A.2d 490 |
| Parties | John ACITELLI, Appellant, v. WESTMONT HILLTOP SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Abood, Rodkey & Eckel, William K. Eckel, Johnstown, for appellant.
Spence, Custer, Saylor, Wolfe & Rose, Wayne G. Wolfe, Johnstown, for appellee.
Before CRUMLISH, Jr., KRAMER, WILKINSON, MENCER, ROGERS and BLATT, JJ.
John Acitelli (Acitelli), the appellant, did not have his teaching contract renewed by the Westmont Hilltop School District after he had received an unsatisfactory rating for the last semester of his two-year employment at the Westmont Hilltop Junior High School. He appealed the action taken by the District School Board (Board) to the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, which affirmed the Board's action, and he has now appealed to this Court.
Acitelli had been originally employed under the classification of 'temporary professional employe', as defined in Section 1101(3) of The Public School Code of 1949, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, 24 P.S. § 11--1101(3). 1 He was to teach Spanish for the 1970--71 school year. 2 He continued teaching under an extended contract during the 1971--72 school year. For both semesters of the 1970--71 school year and for the first semester of the 1971--72 year, his services were rated satisfactory under the procedures prescribed by Section 1123 of The Public School Code of 1949, 24 P.S. § 11--1123. He received an unsatisfactory rating, however, for the second semester of the 1971--72 school year and he was thereupon notified by the chief school administrator that his contract would not be renewed. He was thus denied the opportunity to gain tenure as a 'professional employe'. Section 1108(b) of The Public School Code of 1949, 24 P.S. § 11--1108(b). 3
Acitelli requested a hearing before the Board, which was refused. He then appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County demanding such a proceeding pursuant to the Local Agency Law, Act of Dec. 2, 1968, P.L. 1133, § 4, 53 P.S. § 11304, and a hearing was ordered by the court. When the hearing opened on March 23, 1973, testimony was taken before six members of the nine-man Board, and seven members of the Board concluded the hearing at a session on April 12, 1973.
On June 18, 1973 six members of the Board met and voted unanimously to affirm the administrator's decision to refuse renewal of Acitelli's teaching contract. Of those voting, three members had attended both hearing sessions, two had attended only the second session, and one had not attended either session. An adjudication was issued, which contained the Board's findings of fact and legal reasons supporting its decision. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 7 of the Local Agency Law, 53 P.S. § 11307, Acitelli again appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, which, as above indicated, affirmed the Board's decision, and this appeal followed.
On an appeal brought under the Local Agency Law when, as here, a complete record of the proceedings before the local agency was made and no additional testimony was taken before the court below, we are required to affirm the action of the local agency unless we find that it was in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant, or that the agency manifestly abused its discretion or committed an error of law, or that any finding of fact made by the agency and necessary to sustain its adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence. West Whiteland Township v. Sun Oil Co.,12 Pa.Cmwlth. 159, 316 A.2d 92 (1974). Acitelli urges here that the School Board's adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence.
Substantial evidence, of course, is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Tomlinson Agency v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 11 Pa.Cmwlth. 227, 312 A.2d 118 (1973); A. P. Weaver and Sons v. Sanitary Water Board, 3 Pa.Cmwlth. 499, 284 A.2d 515 (1971). We must, therefore, review the entire record to determine whether or not substantial evidence was presented to support the facts found by the adjudicating agency.
It is obvious that three prior satisfactory ratings do not of themselves entitle a teacher to a fourth. It is equally obvious that four, not three, such ratings are required for a temporary professional employee to become entitled to the tenure status of a permanent teacher. Travis v. Teter, 370 Pa. 326, 87 A.2d 177 (1952). Acitelli, therefore, can clearly be denied permanent employment in the Westmont Hilltop School District solely on the basis of his unsatisfactory rating for the final four months of his required two year period as a temporary professional employee. The question, therefore, is: Was the unsatisfactory rating of Acitelli in the Spring of 1972 supported by substantial evidence? After a careful review of the record, we must agree with the court below that it was.
The testimony discloses that evaluations of temporary professional employees in this school district have been made by Thomas A. Kochuba, the Junior High School Principal, and Joseph Boes, and Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent. Each customarily visits a full class period once per semester. The evaluation is made on forms which are prepared by the district but which follow rather closely the state rating forms. Ratings are made in three categories: 'Personal Qualities', 'Teacher Technique', and 'Pupil Reaction'. Within each, separate rating are made for specific characteristics and anecdotal notes are recorded by the evaluator on the back of the forms. The evaluation and anecdotal comments are then discussed with the teacher concerned. Thereafter, they are submitted to Mr. William Shaffer, the Chief School Administrator and Superintendent for the School District. After conferences with the evaluators, he then makes the rating required by Section 1123 of The Public School Code of 1949, 24 P.S. § 11--1123, and notifies the teacher as required by Section 1108 of the Code, 24 P.S. § 11--1108.
Acitelli's unsatisfactory rating was made in accordance with the procedure just described, and his record was evaluated by Mr. Boes once during each of the four semesters he taught at the Junior High School between 1970 and 1972. It was also evaluated by Mr. Kochuba once during each of three of those semesters. It is true that the overall evaluation in each of the three major categories was 'satisfactory'. The anecdotal notes made regarding many of the evaluations, however, reflected considerable concern as to his teaching skills. According to the testimony of Mr. Shaffer, the Chief School Administrator and Superintendent, the official rating of unsatisfactory given Acitelli during his last semester as a temporary professional employee was primarily based upon the classroom observations of the evaluators for that semester. Mr. Kochuba, as observer, had checked Acitelli on March 23 and judged his overall teaching technique as 'marginal satisfactory'. Poor ratings were recorded in subdivisions for 'variation of techniques', 'individualized instruction', and 'utilization of materials'. Pupil reaction overall was judged 'low satisfactory', with poor ratings in the subdivision titled 'effectiveness/pupil learning'. Personal qualities were rated 'satisfactory'. Subsequently, on April 10, Mr. Boes had observed Acitelli and judged his performance as 'satisfactory' in all three categories. He too, however, recorded poor ratings for subdivisions on 'variation of techniques' and 'pupil enthusiasm'. The anecdotal notes of these and earlier evaluation visits provided Mr. Shaffer and the Board with additional insight for the decision ultimately made. For example, Mr. Kochuba had indicated, these comments: 'motivation not good here', 'too much lecture', 'little student involvement'. Similarly, Mr. Boes recorded 'not much evidence of teacher motivation', 'class response was poor--many of the students seemed confused', 'indicated to me that he does not have a speaking knowledge of the language'. These comments touch upon essential characteristics of an individual's teaching ability and might well form an independent basis for an unsatisfactory rating. The Board gave additional consideration at the hearings to Acitelli's overall two-year development. Regarding it, Mr. Kochuba stated, 'I felt that I witnessed considerable regression in the teacher's attitude and the way he conducted the class.' 'I was very disappointed in his class.' A similar reaction was noted by Mr. Boes as well. The record indicates that Mr. Kochuba and Mr. Boes conferred with Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Penzenstadler v. Avonworth School Dist.
...receive evidence in this type of case with less than a majority of members present. However, in Acitelli v. Westmont Hilltop School District, 15 Pa.Cmwlth. 214, 222, 325 A.2d 490, 494-95 (1974), this Court "Neither due process nor the applicable statutes impel those who finally vote on the ......