Williams v. HISSONG
| Decision Date | 22 December 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:08-CV-240.,1:08-CV-240. |
| Citation | 679 F. Supp.2d 954 |
| Parties | Famious WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. Chad HISSONG, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Famious Williams, Fort Wayne, IN, pro se.
Matthew J. Elliott, Beckman Lawson LLP, Fort Wayne, IN, Christina A. Wright, Trenten D. Klingerman, Stuart & Branigin LLP, Lafayette, IN, for Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on: (1) Defendants Fecher's and Nichols' Motion for Summary Judgment (DE #22), filed on June 19, 2009; (2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (DE #26), filed by Defendants Chad Hissong, James Bragg, and Andrea Pettis, on June 30, 2009; and (3) Defendants' Motion to Strike (DE #33), filed by Defendants Ron Fecher and Joe Nichols, on August 4, 2009. For the reasons set forth below, each of these motions are GRANTED. Accordingly, the clerk is ORDERED to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. The clerk is further ORDERED to close this case.
On October 16, 2008, Plaintiff, Famious Williams, filed a form section 1983 complaint alleging various constitutional claims against Defendants, Chad Hissong, the principal at Elmhurst High School, James Bragg, the assistant principal at Elmhurst High School, Andrea Pettis, a teacher at Elmhurst High School, Ron Fecher, the university supervisor at IPFW, and Joe Nichols, the Chair of the Educational Studies Department at IPFW, arising out of the termination of his student teaching assignment at Elmhurst High School.
Defendants Fecher and Nichols have filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that they are no genuine issues of fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. They have also filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's designated materials in opposition to their motion for summary judgment.
Defendants Hissong, Bragg and Pettis have also filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that they, too, are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Plaintiff, Famious Williams, is a sixty-eight year old black male who, at all relevant times, was a student at Indiana University—Purdue University Fort Wayne (hereinafter "University"). (Pl. Dep. p. 16). In August 2005, Plaintiff began working towards his Teacher Certification; however, because he did not meet the University's requirements for student teaching, he was advised that he was not yet eligible to student teach. . In August 2006, Plaintiff applied for an Academic Fresh Start in order to allow him to qualify to participate in student teaching. . The Academic Fresh Start was granted in November 2007, and Plaintiff was approved for the student teaching program to begin in the Fall of 2008. .
When the student teaching assignment began, Plaintiff was placed as a student teacher at Elmhurst High School ("Elmhurst") in Fort Wayne, Indiana, for a ten-week period beginning August 18, 2008. (Pl. Dep. p. 166; Reynolds Decl. ¶ 19). Andrea Pettis ("Pettis"), a social studies teacher at Elmhurst, was assigned to be Plaintiff's supervising teacher. During the time Plaintiff student taught at Elmhurst, Chad Hissong ("Hissong") was the principal at Elmhurst and James Bragg ("Bragg") was the assistant principal.
Plaintiff was removed from his student teaching placement at Elmhurst during the eighth week, for failing to meet the University's minimum student teaching requirements, including maintaining an average of at least 2.5 on student teaching evaluations. (Pl. Dep. pp. 172, 174; Reynolds Decl. ¶¶ 21-22).
The Educational Studies Department at the University offers accredited programs to obtain a Bachelors of Science degree in Education. The goal of the student teaching program is "to provide the opportunity for acquisition and demonstration of instructional competence" and to allow student teaching candidates to strengthen their skills and knowledge as a teacher. (Pl. Dep. Ex. N at 1; Reynolds Decl. ¶ 5). The student teacher experience at the University involves three facets—a university supervisor, cooperating teacher, and the student teacher. (Pl. Dep. pp. 167-68; Ex. N, p. 1; Reynolds Decl. ¶ 8). The university supervisor serves as a link between the University and the cooperating school. (Pl. Dep. Ex. N, p. 10 Reynolds Decl. ¶ 8). This supervisor observes, evaluates, and confers with each student teacher and cooperating teacher. (Reynolds Decl. ¶ 9). If the student teacher's activities are not "conducive to effective learning," the student teacher must adjust his techniques. (Williams Dep. Ex. N, p. 10; Reynolds Dec. ¶ 7). If the student teacher fails to improve, he may be reassigned or withdrawn from placement. (Reynolds Decl. ¶ 15).
Two student teaching placement periods are required to be completed by the student, both a ten week placement and a six week placement. (Pl. Dep. Ex. N, p. 3; Reynolds Decl. ¶ 12). The University's guidelines require that a natural progression of increasing student teacher immersion takes place throughout the placement period, resulting in the student teacher assuming the full responsibilities of a teacher. (Reynolds Decl. ¶ 12).
Once the student has received a student teaching assignment, the student teaching candidate must contact the cooperating teacher and principal to set up a meeting. (Pl. Dep. Ex. N, p. 4). During the meeting, the student teaching candidate should become acquainted with the cooperating teacher, principal and school, pick up any relevant materials, set goals and expectations, and learn classroom rules and guidelines. (Pl. Dep. Ex. N, p. 4). The first two weeks of the student teaching placement comprise Phase 1, wherein the student teacher participates in school orientation and observation. (Pl. Dep. Ex. N, p. 4). Weeks three through nine comprise Phase 2, wherein the student teacher participates in classroom activity and leads student instruction. (Pl. Dep. pp. 171-72; Ex. N. p. 3). A "minimum of four weeks of full immersion is required to provide the experience necessary for the development of the student teacher." (Pl. Dep. Ex. N, p. 6). During week ten, which comprises Phase 3, the student teacher enters into a period of transition, observation, and reflection. (Pl. Dep. Ex. N, p. 3). The University recommends that 70%-75% of the total student teaching experience be represented by "Instruction" or "Full Teach." (Pl. Dep. Ex. N, p. 6).
A collaborative midterm evaluation takes place between weeks four and five, a midterm evaluation during week six, and a final evaluation during week ten. (Pl. Dep. Ex. N, p. 6). The University requires a cumulative average numerical score on all official student teaching evaluations of at least 2.5 to pass each student teaching placement. (Pl. Dep. Ex. N, p. 2; Reynolds Decl. ¶ 14). If a student teacher fails to meet this requirement on student teacher evaluations, the student's progress is immediately reviewed by university personnel and the student may subsequently be removed from the student teaching placement. (Pl. Dep. pp. 168-69; Reynolds Decl. ¶ 16). The University maintains these standards to provide the students at the host school a quality education. (Reynolds Decl. ¶ 16).
One tool utilized in evaluating student teaching is set forth in "The Conceptual Framework: A Learning and Leadership Model," which is located in the Student Teaching Handbook. (Pl. Dep. p. 167; Ex. N, p. 8). Six areas are evaluated in the Conceptual Framework: democracy and community, habits of mind, pedagogy, knowledge, experience, and leadership. (Pl. Dep. Ex. N, p. 8). The university supervisor, cooperating teacher, and the student teacher all independently evaluate each areas of the Conceptual Framework. (Pl. Dep. Ex. N, pp. 3, 8). The university supervisor, cooperating teacher, the student teacher, and the Director of Field Services all have input in the student's grade throughout the semester. (Pl. Dep. Ex. N, pp. 3, 8). However, the Director of Field Services has the ultimate authority and responsibility for assigning a student teacher's grade. (Reynolds Decl. ¶ 17). At all times relevant, Laura Reynolds was the Director of Field Services.
The University supervisor completes a written student teacher evaluation form each time he observes a student teacher's lesson. (Reynolds Decl. ¶ 13). Student teachers are evaluated on several Rubric Levels and are assigned points in each of those levels. (Reynolds Decl. ¶ 13). A student will receive one point if his performance is "Unsatisfactory," two points if his performance is "Basic," three points if his performance is "Proficient," and four points if his performance is "Distinguished." (Pl. Dep. pp. 149, 151, 186; Ex. H, p. 1; Ex. I, p. 1; Reynolds Decl. ¶ 13). Half points may also be assigned in a Rubric Level if needed. (Pl. Dep. pp. 149, 151, 186; Ex. H, p. 1; Ex. I, p. 1; Reynolds Decl. ¶ 13). In total, ten standards are evaluated. (Pl. Dep. Ex. H, pp. 1-3; Reynolds Decl. ¶ 13).
The written evaluation form contains a section for reflections by the student teacher, wherein he should comment on the strong points of his experience, how he believes he has met his teaching objectives for that experience, how he could and did assess student learning in that experience, and what he might do differently in completing that experience again. (Pl. Dep. pp. 150-157; Ex. H, p. 3; Ex. I, p. 3). A section is also provided for the university supervisor's comments, and a final section is provided for the student teacher's reflection on the critique of the evaluator. (Pl. Dep. p. Ex. H, p. 4). The student teacher and university supervisor must sign the evaluation form. (Reynolds Decl. ¶ 13). The student teaching experience is graded on a Pass/Fail basis. (Pl. Dep. Ex. N, p. 6; Reynolds Decl. ¶ 15). If a student received an "F" for the student teaching...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fitzpatrick v. City of Fort Wayne
... ... , a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if "a reasonable officer could have mistakenly believed that probable cause existed." Williams ... ...
-
Alive v. Hauppauge Sch. Dist.
...(11th Cir. 1991) ("The plaintiff has failed to show that others similarly situated were treateddifferently."); Williams v. Hissong, 679 F. Supp. 2d 954, 965-66 (N.D. Ill. 2009) ("Plaintiff points to no similarly situated individuals who were treated differently or more favorably than himsel......