Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division; October 23, 1985; New Jersey; State Appellate Court
Donald Rowley, a tenured teacher in the Manalapan-Englishtown Regional School District, is appealing his dismissal by the State Board of Education, which found him inefficient after rejecting the Commissioner of Education's procedural dismissal of the charges against him. The State Board assessed the allegations de novo and concluded inefficiency was proven, yet did so without making factual findings or reviewing the transcript from a lengthy hearing by an administrative law judge, who also did not address the substantive issue. The court reversed and remanded the case.
Rowley had been employed since 1962, and difficulties in his teaching performance surfaced notably during the 1980-1981 school year, leading to a decision that he was not eligible for a salary increment. In the 1981-1982 academic year, Rowley underwent eight evaluations conducted by various supervisors. Evaluators observed his teaching and rated him on 30 characteristics across six categories, with ratings ranging from acceptable to needing improvement. The evaluations indicated that for fourteen characteristics, Rowley received acceptable ratings from at least half of the evaluators, while three others received mixed assessments. However, a consensus emerged that he needed improvement in meeting the individual needs of students.
The evaluations included narrative critiques identifying specific deficiencies, such as reliance on textbooks, unengaging lesson delivery, failure to group students appropriately, and inadequate homework management. Rowley engaged in discussions with supervisors about these deficiencies and strategies for improvement.
On March 11, 1982, the acting superintendent filed inefficiency charges against Rowley with the local board, citing failures in 14 areas and a need for improvement in five others, triggering a 90-day period for Rowley to address these deficiencies as mandated by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-11. During this period, Rowley underwent five evaluations, receiving written critiques and recommendations from various evaluators. Ultimately, the acting superintendent determined that Rowley did not improve, leading to a notice of continued charges in June 1982. The local board subsequently voted to certify the charges to the Commissioner of Education, who referred the case to the Office of Administrative Law. An administrative law judge recommended dismissing the charges due to the local board's noncompliance with statutory requirements regarding the 90-day correction period, a view supported by the Commissioner. However, upon appeal, the State Board sided with its legal committee, concluding that the documentary evidence demonstrated compliance and justified Rowley's dismissal. The central issue involves the proper interpretation of N.J.S.A. 18A:6-11, which stipulates that for inefficiency charges, the board must provide written notice and a 90-day period for correction before certification of charges. Both the administrative law judge and Commissioner emphasized that compliance with this 90-day period is essential for the validity of the charges, a view the State Board upheld, although they disagreed on the actual compliance in Rowley's case. The courts have yet to interpret this 90-day provision in a published opinion, though the Department of Education has established compliance standards since 1977.
During the 90-day period specified in Section IIB4 of the Guidelines, administrative and supervisory staff are required to assist teaching staff members in addressing identified inefficiencies. The Commissioner of Education interprets this mandate as imposing a significant obligation on the administration to provide positive support to teachers facing tenure charges of inefficiency. This position has been upheld by the State Board, which emphasizes that under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-11, a local board of education must aid a tenured teacher in improving performance prior to any removal actions. The rationale is that teachers, after a history of effective service, deserve the opportunity to rectify performance issues if they receive clear feedback on the criticisms and constructive guidance for improvement.
The State Board insists on a cohesive effort from the board before and after charges are filed to effectively assess a teacher's progress. Although the Commissioner and the State Board disagreed on whether the local board provided adequate assistance, the Department of Education's interpretation of the 90-day provision aligns with statutory language and legislative intent, ensuring teacher safeguards without imposing excessive burdens on local boards. While not legally bound by an agency’s interpretation, such interpretations carry significant weight. The administrative law judge reviewed comprehensive evidence, including evaluations and testimonies, concluding that the local board failed to provide meaningful assistance as mandated, highlighting the necessity for teachers to have clear performance standards during the improvement period.
The teacher must be informed of specific alleged inefficiencies to provide a reasonable opportunity for correction during the improvement period. If the respondent's teaching performance declined after years of good service, the Board's supervisors were obligated to assist him, which they failed to do. Their evaluations were independent and did not relate to the inefficiencies charged, lacking synthesis with the specific issues identified. The evaluations were inadequate to fulfill the regulatory obligation to support the teacher's improvement. The Commissioner agreed with the administrative law judge's recommendation to dismiss the charges due to noncompliance with N.J.S.A. 18A:6-11. The State Board, lacking the hearing transcripts, relied solely on documentary evidence and concluded that the evaluators' critiques met the local board's obligations. However, the documentary evidence, when contextualized with the evaluators' and teacher's testimonies, supports the administrative law judge's and Commissioner's views. Due process requires agency actions to be based on a complete record, and the State Board's failure to consider the full transcript invalidates its determination. Therefore, the matter must be remanded to the State Board for reconsideration of whether the local board adequately complied with the statutory requirements during the 90-day correction period. If the State Board agrees with the previous findings, the charges will be dismissed, and the local board may initiate new proceedings against the teacher if deemed necessary.
The State Board must remand the case to the administrative law judge for an initial decision if it finds that the local board complied with N.J.S.A. 18A:6-11. The State Board's conclusion regarding Rowley’s inefficiency is flawed due to its failure to consider the hearing transcript and to provide factual findings. The attorney general acknowledges that without additional factfinding or an initial decision on the merits, the issue of inefficiency should not have been addressed. The administrative process requires that this substantive question be resolved by the administrative law judge before review by the Commissioner. Parties dissatisfied with the Commissioner’s ruling may appeal to the State Board. The decision is reversed and remanded to the State Department of Education for further proceedings.
