Board of School Com'rs of Baltimore City v. James

• Decision Date: 01 September 1992
• Docket Number: 1554,Nos. 1553,s. 1553
• Citation: 96 Md.App. 401,625 A.2d 361
• Parties: , 83 Ed. Law Rep. 203 BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF BALTIMORE CITY v. June F. JAMES. BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF BALTIMORE CITY v. Carrie DAVIS
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 401

96 Md.App. 401

625 A.2d 361, 83 Ed. Law Rep. 203

BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF BALTIMORE CITY v. June F. JAMES.

BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF BALTIMORE CITY v. Carrie DAVIS.

Nos. 1553, 1554 Sept. Term, 1992.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

June 3, 1993.

Eileen A. Carpenter, Principal Counsel, Baltimore, argued (Otho M. Thompson, Deputy City Sol. and Avery Aisenstark, Sp. Associate Sol., on the brief), for appellant.

Joel A. Smith, Baltimore, argued (Kahn, Smith & Collins, P.A., on the brief), for appellees.

Argued before WILNER, C.J., and MOTZ, J., and ROSALYN B. BELL, J. Retired (Specially Assigned).

MOTZ, Judge.

In each of these consolidated cases appellant, Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City (the Local Board) appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City finding that Maryland State Board of Education (the State Board) erred when it upheld the Local Board's decision to discharge a teacher on the ground of incompetency.

(i)

Appellees, June Faye James and Carrie Davis (collectively, the teachers), were middle school teachers in the Baltimore City Public School System. Both received year-end evaluations for the school years 1988-89 and 1989-90 of "needs improvement." Richard C. Hunter, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the Baltimore City Schools, recommended to the Local Board that Ms. James and Ms. Davis be dismissed for incompetency. Separate two-day dismissal hearings were conducted in each case by a hearing examiner, who recommended, in each case, that the Local Board uphold the Superintendent's recommendation for termination. On December 6, 1990, the Local Board voted to accept the decisions of the hearing examiners and to uphold the recommendations of the Superintendent. Ms. James and Ms. Davis appealed that decision to the State Board. At the designation of the State Board, an administrative law judge held a de novo hearing in each case.

After considering the testimony of 5 witnesses (including Ms. James herself) and 11 exhibits over a two-day hearing, an administrative law judge made the following findings of fact with regard to Ms. James, which we set forth verbatim:

(1) [Ms. James] has been a teacher in the Baltimore City School System since 1969.

(2) [Ms. James] began teaching at the Booker T. Washington Middle School at the beginning of school year 1986-87.

(3) [Ms. James] is an "elected" [tenured] teacher.

FINDINGS RELATED TO SCHOOL YEAR 1988-89.

(4) During school year 1988-89, [Ms. James] was late 49 times and absent on sick leave 96 days.

(5) On December 2, 1988, [Ms. James] received an "informal observation" from Warren K. Moore, Educational Specialist, Office of English/Language Arts.

(6) No formal evaluation of [Ms. James] was conducted during school year 1988-89.

(7) [Ms. James] received a final evaluation for school year 1988-89 of "needs improvement."

FINDINGS RELATED TO SCHOOL YEAR 1989-90.

(8) During school year 1989-90, [Ms. James] was late 69 times and was absent on sick leave on 33 days.

(9) In September, 1989, an Individualized Professional Assistance Plan for [Ms. James] was entered into by [Ms. James], her department head, the principal and the instructional specialist.

(10) The primary objectives of the Individualized Professional Assistance Plan were that, by December 1, 1989, [Ms. James] would have established the following: learning objectives consistent with appraisal of individual student needs and requirements of the curriculum framework, particularly in the area of written composition; an accurate, systematic, cumulative record of student achievement in the area of written composition; and, an appraisal of student learning levels, interests, and needs, particularly in the area of written composition.

(11) [Ms. James] failed to meet the objectives of the Individualized Professional Assistance Plan.

(12) [Ms. James] was formally observed on October 25, 1989, and on February 22 and March 20, 1990. The observation of October 25, 1990 was assessed as "good"; those of February 22 and March 20, 1990 were assessed as "satisfactory."

(13) [Ms. James] received a "satisfactory" evaluation on November 21, 1989.

(14) [Ms. James] received a "needs improvement" evaluation on March 27, 1990.

James v. Board, decision of Administrative Law Judge Guy J. Avery, dated December 4, 1991 (citations to record before administrative law judge omitted).

The administrative law judge concluded

The evidence shows that [Ms. James's] performance as a teacher during school years 1988-89 and 1989-90 was not up to professional standards. Not only did she receive ... "needs improvement" final evaluations for both school years, she was also late on an excessive number of occasions. Moreover, she failed to comply with the provisions of the Individualized Professional Assistance Plan to which she had agreed.

Id. The administrative law judge, however, determined as a matter of law that the Local Board violated [Ms. James's] right to due process

in that the full record of the proceeding before its hearing examiner was not reviewed by the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City and [Ms. James] was not given an opportunity to present argument before the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City.

I further conclude, as a matter of law, that the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City failed to comply with its own procedures in seeking to discharge the Appellant and that, as a result, the Statement of Charges cannot be sustained.

Id. For these reasons, the administrative law judge recommended

(1) The decision by the Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners to discharge [Ms. James] should be REVERSED by the State Board.

(2) [Ms. James] should be reinstated with full pay and benefits effective December 6, 1990.

Id. The administrative law judge further recommended that in the event the State Board should choose to discharge Ms. James the discharge "be made effective the date of the State Board's Order." Id.

The case was argued before the State Board. The State Board adopted the findings of fact of the administrative law judge and the local hearing examiner, but concluded, upon its independent review of the record, to reject the administrative law judge's recommendation. The State Board determined that the failure of the Local Board to comply with the requirements for a transcript and oral argument were procedural errors, cured by the State Board's de novo review and the opportunity for oral argument before the State Board. It found the failure to have a formal evaluation by a non-school-based observer during the 1988-89 year was not a "fatal error" because the "primary purpose" of the Baltimore City evaluation procedures is to "improve instruction and to encourage growth in professional ability and responsibility on the part of the staff" and "not to confer procedural benefits upon teachers...." (emphasis in original). Finally, the State Board concluded that there were "sufficient undisputed facts in [the] record to sustain dismissal on the ground of incompetency," i.e., "Ms. James'[s] failure to have lesson plans, unit outlines, and emergency lesson plans; her failure to submit a quarterly grade distribution sheet; her failure to meet the objectives of the individualized professional assistance plan developed for her in 1989 including her failure to maintain an accurate, systematic, cumulative record of student achievement in the area of written composition; her failure to have learning objectives consistent with the appraisal of individual student needs and the requirements of the curriculum framework; and the high failure rate of her students."

Ms. Davis's case was heard by a different administrative law judge. After considering the testimony of 6 witnesses (including Ms. Davis) and 28 exhibits over a two-day hearing, that administrative law judge recommended that the State Board grant Ms. Davis's motion to dismiss "the action of the [L]ocal [Board]." Davis v. Board, decision of Administrative Law Judge Laurie Bennett, dated October 17, 1991. The administrative law judge determined that any violations of Ms. Davis's due process rights caused by the Local Board's procedural errors in hearing this matter were cured by de novo review by the State Board. Id. The administrative law judge nevertheless concluded that Ms. Davis's motion should be granted because the Local Board "failed to confer upon [Ms. Davis] an important procedural benefit," in that her 1988-89 year end evaluation did not contain an observation by an non-school-based observer as specified in the Baltimore City school procedures. Id.

Ms. Davis's case was also argued before the State Board. The State Board, based upon its independent review of the record, rejected the proposed decision of the administrative law judge and adopted the findings of fact of the local hearing examiner. The local hearing examiner had found inter alia that: ¹

(1) Ms. Davis had been a teacher in the Baltimore City School System since 1968.

(2) She taught in the Winston Middle School in school year 1988-89; and in the Booker T. Washington Middle School in school year 1989-90.

FINDINGS RELATED TO SCHOOL YEAR 1988-89.

(3) There is "no question that Ms. Davis was absent a lot" during the 1988-89 school year.

(4) Ms. Davis was formally and informally observed on several occasions during the 1988-89 school year.

(5) Ms. Davis was not observed by a non-school-based observer during the 1988-89 school year. She was assessed as "good" in one formal observation and "satisfactory" in another although in the latter she was assessed as "needs improvement" in one criterion because "her skills in writing lesson and long range plans were weak." Her math department head observed Ms. Davis informally "throughout the school year," her "assessment was that she would not want Ms. Davis to teach her child."

(6) Ms. Davis's final evaluation for school year 1988-89 was "needs...