Toland v. State Board of Education

Moore, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal involves the discharge, pursuant to Md. Code, Art. 77, § 114 1 (1957, 1975 Repl. Vol.), of a Montgomery ³⁹⁰ County schoolteacher as a result of formal action by the Montgomery County Board of Education and the State Board of Education, which was affirmed by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The County Board recommended dismissal on grounds of incompetence in the classroom, rejecting the findings and recommendations of its hearing examiner.

At the State level, the hearing examiner found that appellant was highly competent as a teacher but that her record of absences justified her discharge, and the State Board of Education adopted his findings and recommendations. Upon appeal to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, it was found that appellant’s absences were, in part, explained by evidence, received for the first time at the judicial hearing and never considered in the prior proceedings, of 49 days’ approved leave during the summer vacation period of 1972. Nonetheless, the court held that there was evidence before the State Board of appellant’s incompetence as a classroom teacher which justified her discharge, quite apart from the issue of absenteeism. The State Board had, in the court’s view, decided the case on “too narrow a premise.” It is our conclusion, upon our consideration of the record and of the legal issues involved, that the court erred, and that the proceedings should be remanded to the State agency for consideration of the evidence adduced before the court.

I Appellant, in her early 40’s, has been an elementary schoolteacher since 1956 and entered upon her employment in the Montgomery County School System in 1961, teaching the second through the fourth grades. In 1966, she was assigned to William Tyler Page School in Silver Spring, ³⁹¹ where she taught primarily second grade pupils. Periodical evaluations of her teaching ability were extremely favorable until November, 1972, after a new principal had been named to the school in February of that year. In November, 1972, the new principal found appellant “unsatisfactory” in certain evaluation areas and in January, 1973, he placed her on the “Mid-year Report,” noting, inter alia, “I believe that Miss Toland demonstrates a low level of teaching competence for a person who has 15 years’ of experience.. ..” Thereafter, on November 13, 1973, the principal recommended that she be dismissed as a teacher after evaluating her as unsatisfactory in four out of five evaluation areas.

The then Superintendent adopted the recommendation of the school principal and the appellant was formally notified of her dismissal on March 26, 1974. 2 Upon her request for a hearing, the County Board of Education designated Harry J. Lambeth, Esq. as a hearing examiner and proceedings were conducted before him on June 14, 22 and 26, 1974. He filed a 19-page detailed report on July 26, 1974, in which it was found that appellant was “not an incompetent teacher and that she has not been shown to have wilfully neglected her duties.” It was the recommendation of the examiner that the Board of Education “reject the recommendation of its Superintendent of Schools; and that the Respondent be reassigned to a new school, preferably one with a more traditional philosophy of education.” In the course of the examiner’s report, it was noted that testimony was heard briefly from the Superintendent, as well as from the principal and an area supervisor; and that appellant testified in her own behalf. In addition, the hearing examiner stated that “Miss Toland’s success as a teacher brought at least ten parents to the hearing to explain how she helped their children.” In August, 1974, in accordance with Board procedures, ³⁹² counsel for the Superintendent and the teacher presented oral argument to the six-member County Board of Education, one member being absent. In a written decision and order dated September 11, 1974, it was ordered that appellant be dismissed as a teacher in the County School System on grounds of incompetence in accordance with the statute.

One of the five members dissented. An appeal from the Board’s decision was duly made to the State Board of Education which appointed Frank A. DeCosta, Esq. as hearing examiner. By agreement of the parties, no additional testimony was given and oral argument was presented on January 14, 1975. After the submission of briefs in February and March, 1975, further oral argument was held before Mr. DeCosta on April 18, 1975.

In his findings of fact Mr. DeCosta observed in part: “Although the evaluation of Dr. Stufft [the principal! and other administrators clearly indicates that there are a number of areas in which Petitioner can improve her teaching skills and her administrative tasks associated with her classroom teaching responsibilities, this record does not clearly establish that Petitioner either (1! lacks the requisite knowledge required to teach or (2) lacks the ability to impart that knowledge to her students. On the contrary, this record strongly suggests that Petitioner is a well-trained elementary school teacher possessing exceptional skills as a reading teacher who takes an interest in her students during and after school hours.” (Emphasis added.) The examiner went on to point out, however, that “incompetency” may be founded upon grounds other than a teacher’s knowledge and teaching skills. In this connection, he referred to appellant’s record of absenteeism and stated: “As an example, this record reflects that during the school year 1972-73, Petitioner was absent a total of 60 days, and there is expert testimony as to the difficulty of administering a sound and efficient ³⁹³ educational program when regular teachers are frequently absent.” It was the State hearing examiner’s conclusion, solely upon the evidence of Miss Toland’s absences, that the County Board had “met its admittedly heavy burden in persuasively demonstrating cause for Petitioner’s dismissal upon both the ground of ‘incompetency’ and ‘wilful neglect of duty’ ”, citing, Granderson v. Orleans Parish School Board, 216 So. 2d 643 (La. App. 1968).

The State Board of Education formally adopted the “findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations of the hearing examiner in this case” on August 27, 1975. Miss Toland thereupon appealed, filing an Order for Appeal pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, Code, Art. 41, § 244 et seq., and Maryland Rule B2, on September 26, 1975. At the court hearing, with the consent of the parties and in accordance with § 255 (e) of the Act, the court received as an exhibit on behalf of the teacher a printed form employed by Montgomery County Public Schools entitled, “Request for Leave (Short Term).” The form was dated June 5, 1972, signed by the appellant, and requested leave for the period June 19 to August 26, 1972, without salary, with the explanation, “My doctor has requested that I take the summer off to rest — medical reasons.” The form contains a recommendation for approval, dated June 5, 1972 and a final approval on June 7, 1972, for 49 days without pay. With respect to this evidence, the lower court observed: “The evidence admitted suggests that the petitioner had made a request that she be excused from teaching in the summer session and that this request was orally approved, but that somehow the approval was not properly recorded.” The court went on to state its evaluation of the effect of this new evidence, saying: “However, we do not believe that such evidence, had it been known to the State Board, would have ³⁹⁴ justified the State Board in reaching any different conclusion from what it did.

There was substantial evidence in the record before the County Board that the petitioner was not a competent classroom teacher, aside from her excessive absenteeism.” And the memorandum opinion then states: “Looking at the record as a whole, we think the State Board rightfully affirmed the decision and order of the County Board but on too narrow a premise.” Concluding that the opinion of the State Board of Education sustaining appellant’s dismissal by the Board of Education of Montgomery County should be affirmed, the court described the scope of its review in the following language: “Under Article 41, Section 255(g), there are eight factors which this Court should consider in reviewing the decision of the State Board of Education. Essentially, however, only the last three are pertinent to this inquiry. They deal with whether the evidence, including any de novo matter, is sufficient to support the decision of the Board or whether that decision was arbitrary or capricious. In answering these questions, we must bear in mind that it is not the function of this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the Board of Education.

In effect, judicial inquiry is limited to deciding whether, on the record, the State Board could reasonably make the finding it did.” (Emphasis added.) II The provisions of Article 41, § 255 (g) pertaining to the scope of judicial review in administrative proceedings, to which the court referred, are as follows: “(g) Affirmance, remand, reversal or modifica ³⁹⁵ tion of decision. — The court may affirm