#051-R9-1085
DOCKET NO. 051-R9-1085
--
CHARLOTTE YOES
*
BEFORE THE STATE
*
*
V.
*
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
*
ANGLETON INDEPENDENT
*
SCHOOL DISTRICT *
THE STATE OF TEXAS
DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER
Statement of the Case
Petitioner, Charlotte Yoes, appeals from the decision
of Respondent Angleton Independent School District to deny
her placement on career ladder level two for the 1984-85
school year.
Petitioner is represented by Martha P. Owen, Attorney
at Law, Austin, Texas. Respondent is represented by Mark H.
Neal, Attorney at Law, Angleton, Texas. The parties filed
cross motions for summary judgment, and this matter will be
decided upon those motions and the responses thereto.
Margaret O. Thompson was appointed as Hearing Officer by the
State Commissioner of Education for the purpose of issuing a
Proposal for Decision.
On April 15, 1987, the Hearing Officer issued a
Proposal for Decision recommending to the State Commissioner
of Education that Petitioner's Motion to Summary Judgment be
GRANTED. Our records reflect that a copy of the Proposal
for Decision was received by both parties. Respondent filed
Exceptions to the Proposal for Decision on April 30, 1987.
Petitioner's reply to Respondent's exceptions was filed on
May 26, 1987.
Findings of Fact
After due consideration of the evidence and matters
officially noticed, in my capacity as State Commissioner of
Education, I make the following Findings of Fact:
1. Petitioner, a teacher in Respondent school
district, applied for career ladder level two placement for
the 1984-85 school year. (Pet. Rev., par. 5).
2. Petitioner held a bachelor's degree, and presented
15 hours of higher education course credits in her
application for level two placement. (Pet. M. Sum. J., Ex.
E).
3. In August, 1984 teachers with bachelor's degrees in
Respondent district received a letter from the
superintendent which stated as follows:
Dear Teacher:
New state law provides for a teacher career
ladder. Teachers will be on level I or level II
during 1984-85. You hold a bachelor's degree and
may be eligible for level II during 1984-85.
Temporarily, you have been placed on level I, and
the attached contract reflects this. A committee
of five will accept applications from holders of
bachelors degrees who feel sure that they belong
on level II. If the committee determines that you
meet all qualifications, the level II supplement
will be added to your 1984-85 salary.
Qualifications are: For the 1984-85 school year,
a classroom teacher must have a B.A. or B.S.
degree, three years of teaching experience with at
least acceptable past performance, a permanent
teaching certificate, and nine or more semester
hours of higher education course work in the
general area of teaching assignment, pedagogy, or
classroom management. All of the above must have
been obtained prior to September 1, 1984. The
only acceptable proof of the above is an official
sealed transcript from an accredited college or
university, and an official school service record.
An application form is enclosed. The application
form must be completed and turned in to Mr. Gus
Nelson's office not later than September 15, 1984.
The official transcript including the hours in
higher education must be in Mrs. Flo Kubala's
office not later than September 15, 1984, if you
wish to be considered.
Sincerely,
/s/
Easton Wall
Superintendent
(Pet. Mot. Sum. J., Ex. B).
4. At the same time, teachers with master's degrees
were informed by the Superintendent as follows:
Dear Teacher:
New State law provides for career ladder levels
for classroom teachers. Teachers may be placed on
levels I or II for 1984-85. The law states that
classroom teachers with a master's degree in the
subject taught, and two or more years acceptable
past experience, as of September 1, 1984, may be
placed on level II. Also, classroom teachers with
bachelor's degrees, three or more years
experience, and nine or more graduate hours in the
subject taught may be placed on level II.
We are placing you on level II for 1984-85, based
on your having a master's degree. A committee of
five will be evaluating your formal training
reflected on your official transcript. If you
meet either of the above requirements, you will
remain on level II for 1985-86. If you do not
meet either of the above requirements by September
1, 1985, the law requires us to move you back to
level I for 1985-86.
You will be notified soon after October 1, 1984,
if it appears that you do not meet either of the
sets of requirements. This will give you time to
work off any deficiencies if you wish to do so.
We will appreciate your working with us on this.
Sincerely,
/s/
Easton Wall
Superintendent
(Pet. Mot. Sum. J., Ex. C).
5. The statute in effect at all times relevant to this
matter regarding qualifications for level two placement
states as follows:
To enter level two, a teacher must have at least
performance exceeding expectations during the
preceding year and satisfactory performance the
other year(s), hold a level two certificate, and
must have:
(1) a B.A. or B.S. degree, three years of teaching
experience, and nine semester hours of higher
education course work or 135 hours of advanced
academic training or an equivalent combination
so that one semester hour of higher education
course work is equivalent to 15 hours of
advanced academic training; or
(2) An M.A. or M.S. degree in the subject taught
and two years of teaching experience.
(Tex. Ed. Code Section 13.308, Vernon Supp. 1986).
6. The statute in effect regarding higher education
course work states as follows:
(a) Higher education course work and advanced
academic training must relate to the general
subject area taught and must be accredited by
the board.
(b) The board shall include classroom management
training among the advanced academic training
it accredits and shall specify the amount of
classroom management training required at each
level.
(Tex. Educ. Code Section 13.315 (Vernon Supp. 1986).
7. In April, 1985 the Board of Trustees of Respondent
school district adopted a career ladder policy for 1984-85
placement which was based in part on Texas State Board of
Education rules adopted in March, 1985. The State Board
rules were intended to be effective for the 1985-86 career
ladder placement year.
For teachers with bachelor's degrees the local board
policy contained the following requirements regarding
education and experience:
Option I
1.
A baccalaureate degree
2.
Three years of classroom teaching experience
3. An employee must have been employed by the
Angleton ISD during the 1983-84 school year to
qualify for placement on Level II of the
Career Ladder in 1984-85, and
4. Nine semester hours of higher education course
work. At least 50% of course work must be
taken in the subject or in a methods course
related to the subject taught and/or certified
as listed in Chapter 75. (The State and
Federal Constitution course needed for
certification of out of state teachers will
not qualify for Career Ladder placement.)
(Local Record, Ex. 6).
8. For teachers with master's degrees, the Board
adopted two options in their policy. One was not based on
the State Board rules. It stated as follows:
Option II
All Career Ladder decisions made prior to March
15, 1985 of the placement of teachers with
master's degrees and two years or more of
experience on Level II.
(Local Record, Ex. 6).
An alternative version of Option II is found in a
document headed:
At the April 12, 1985 meeting of the Angleton
Board of Education the following guidelines were
approved for placement of teachers on the Career
Ladder for 1984-85 school year.
It stated as follows:
Option II
The Committee endorses all Career Ladder decisions
made prior to March 15, 1984 (sic) of teachers
with master's degrees and two years of experience
on Level II.
(Pet. M. Sum. J., Ex. F).
Option III, based on the State Board rules, provided as
follows:
Option III
1.
A master's degree in:
a. a subject listed in Chapter 75 as an
elementary, secondary, or all-level subject
to be taught
b. education (excluding degrees specifically
designed for preparation for special service
positions such as administrator, counselor,
supervisor, etc.) with a concentration of at
least twelve semester hours in a subject or
combination of subjects to be taught in the
public schools, or
c. an endorsement area or delivery system
approved by the State Board of Education
such as kindergarten or other endorsements
and bilingual and special education delivery
systems, and
2. Two years of classroom teaching experience.
(Local Record, Ex. 6).
9. Applying Option II, Respondent placed all teachers
with master's degrees on level two for 1984-85 regardless of
the subject area of their master's course work. (Pet. for
Rev., Pars. 8, 14).
10. Respondent's career ladder committee denied
Petitioner placement on level two, stating to her in writing
that the reason for the denial was that Petitioner had
"insufficient course work in subject area." (Pet. Mot. Sum.
J., Ex. G).
11. Petitioner appealed her denial of placement to the
Board of Trustees; her appeal was denied. (Pet. for Rev.,
par. 6).
Discussion
Petitioner raises three issues in appealing her denial
of placement on career ladder level two for the 1984-85
school year: (1) Was the requirement that at least 50% of
the required higher education course work be in the subject
taught or in a methods course related to the subject taught
and/or certified as listed in Chapter 75 arbitrary and
capricious? (2) Was the automatic placement of teachers
with master's degrees arbitrary and capricious? (3)
Alternatively, Petitioner asks the hearing officer to
determine if the courses offered by Respondent meet the 50%
requirement.
The courses which Petitioner, a sixth grade reading
teacher, offered in order to meet the required nine hours of
higher education credit beyond the bachelor's degree were in
the areas of reading, classroom management and teaching
methods. (Pet. Mot. Sum. J., Ex. A, Ex. D). These courses
appear to meet the statutory requirement that higher
education course work "must relate to the general subject
area taught." However, the career ladder committee rejected
Petitioner's application because the courses did not meet
the district's stricter requirement of being at least 50% in
the subject taught.
By contrast, all teachers in the district holding
master's degrees and the required experience were placed on
level two regardless of the subject matter of the courses
taken for the master's degree, and despite the statutory
requirement that master's degrees must be "in the subject
taught." (Tex. Ed. Code Section 13.308(2), Vernon Supp.
1986.)
Respondent Board of Trustees was entitled to adopt
stricter requirements for level two placement than were
required by the guidelines issued by the State Board of
Education in July, 1984. See Bice v. Andrews ISD, Docket
No. 009-R9-985, Dec. Comm'r, February, 1987. Those
guidelines are stated as "Minimum Requirements for
Assignments to Level Two for 1984-85" (emphasis added)
(Implementation of H.B. 72, Explanations and
Interpretations, July 1984, TEA).
The Board, however, is obligated to observe statutory
requirements and to adopt a policy which is reasonable in
its application to all teachers.
Respondent adopted a policy which required bachelor's
degreed teachers to meet a stricter standard regarding
higher education course work than it required of master's
degreed teachers. There is no rational basis for that
distinction. Further, Respondent apparently recognized that
it was allowing unqualified course work to count for
master's degreed teachers for the 1984-85 placement year
when it stated to them that "if you do not meet either of
the above requirements (for bachelor's or master's degrees)
by September 1, 1985, the law requires us to move you back
to level I for 1985-86" (Finding of Fact No. 4). Thus, the
level II placement of master's degreed teachers for 1984-85
was allowed to stand even if their courses did not meet the
statutory requirement.
The decision made in August, 1984 to automatically
place all teachers with master's degrees on level two, no
matter in what subject matter the course work was taken, was
confirmed by adoption of Option II of the career ladder
Board policy in April, 1985.
Because there is no basis for requiring teachers with a
bachelor's degree to meet more stringent requirements for
their course work than teachers with master's degrees, the
entire policy in regard to higher education course work was
flawed. It was arbitrary and capricious to demand of
Petitioner that she present at least 50% of her course work
in the subject taught or in related methods courses, while
accepting master's degree course work regardless of whether
or not it was related to the subject taught.
Since in this case there is no genuine issue of
material fact, the party carrying the burden of proof is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. McBean v. McBean,
Civ. App. 1963, 371 S.W.2d 930.) Petitioner has carried her
burden of proof and her motion for summary judgment should
be GRANTED. Respondent's motion for summary judgment should
be DENIED. This matter should be remanded to Respondent
Board of Trustees to reconsider the placement of Petitioner
on career ladder level two based on a policy which judges
the course work of all applicants according to a reasonable
and consistent standard.
In light of the above, it is unnecessary to decide the
issue of whether or not Petitioner's courses met the
requirements of Respondent's policy.
Reply to Exceptions
Respondent excepts to the Proposal for Decision,
complaining that the error in Respondent's policy caused no
harm to Petitioner. However, Respondent's policy allowed
the possibility of placement of teachers on level two who
were less well prepared academically than was Petitioner.
This would not only be harmful to Petitioner but also be
inconsistent with the intent of the legislature in adopting
the career ladder statute to reward and encourage the best
teachers in each district. Respondent's policy placed a
premium on having a master's degree in hand while failing to
consider the content of courses offered by master's and
bachelor's degreed teachers by a consistent standard.
Respondent also misapprehends the instructions upon
remand in its Exception No. 3. Respondent should follow a
policy which evaluates all course work, whether offered by
teachers with a master's degree or by those with a
Bachelor's degree, on the same basis. If Petitioner's
course work meets that standard, Respondent should place her
on level II of the career ladder.
Conclusions of Law
After due consideration of the record, matters
officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact, in
my capacity as State Commissioner of Education, I make the
following Conclusions of Law:
1. Respondent's policy concerning higher education
course work for level two placement, under which
Petitioner's application was denied, was arbitrary and
capricious.
2. Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment should be
GRANTED.
3. Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment should be
DENIED.
4. This matter should be remanded to Respondent Board
of Trustees to reconsider its policy for higher education
course credits for level II career ladder placement in the
1984-85 school year and to reconsider Petitioner's
application for level II placement in light of this
decision.
O R D E R
After due consideration of the record, matters
officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, in my capacity as State Commissioner of
Education, it is hereby
ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment
be GRANTED and this matter be REMANDED to Respondent's Board
of Trustees to reconsider its policy for higher education
course credits for level two career ladder placement in the
1984-85 school year and to reconsider Petitioner's
application for level two placement.
SIGNED AND ENTERED this _____ day of ________________,
19_____.
______________________________
W. N. KIRBY
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION