thousand and eighteen the school district terminated the employment of teacher rachel kailash for cause and then over the course of a two day administrative trial the school district proved by preponderance of the evidence that cause to terminate did exist the independent hearing officer who ruled in the school district favor was selected by both parties possessed all the credentials expert experience mandated by the illinois state board of education independent hearing officers who heard the live testimony from all the witnesses and judge their credibility and it was the independent hearing officer that authored and issued a thirty two page opinion finding that the school district had cause to dismiss we also found is that in may two thousand and sixteen the school board issued kailash a notice to remedy in connection with her dishonesty and lack of cooperation with the district investigation earlier in the spring you know were you what year did you say that wa own children for the protection of students the district conducted its own due diligence investigation into kailash only to be stymied by her dishonesty and lack of cooperation the two thousand and sixteen notice of remedy scalars that she was to exercise appropriate and professional judgment and conduct herself in a professional manner professional inappropriate conduct is a term that is specifically delineated in the school district policy manual and the policy manual adopts the code of ethics for illinois educators from the illinois administrators code professionalism specifically means demonstrating integrity honesty and being considerate and cooperative and also at the heart of professionalism that concept as set out in the code of ethics for only educators is a teacher responsibility to students responsibility through commitment to teaching promoting and implementing the learning environment that accessible to students and is designed to it to enable students to achieve in academics and society so despite that two thousand and sixteen notice to remedy less than two years later doing class for the classroom time and again she left students unintended in the classroom while teaching by herself at least once per week she left her th period class for five to ten minutes and one occasion for nothing more to look at then to look at decorations in the hallway she left her class during co teaching for twenty to twenty five minutes to make a phone call regarding a seat that machine she left her class during co teaching for fifteen to twenty minutes to speak with a colleague she left her class during teaching for ten to fifteen minutes to smoke a cigarette because she was frustrated and then she left her cook teaching class while students were present but she was gone for three thousand and forty minutes while she made a phone call to an airline to to to reschedule or flights s so during the two thousand seven hundred and eighteen school year she left her coat teaching classroom at least fifteen times and there was even one occasion that was the airline incident where she even acknowledge unprofessionalism and real time saying she knew what she was doing was unprofessional she knew and even the one occasion or she had stomach issues need to leave she exhibited utter and professionalism by not even notifying the administration that she was leaving and not making sure the administration could arrange for rent for a substitute a critical part of professionalism is responsibilities d of students and how can kailash be was professionally not even in the classroom  after the hearing and all the evidence at the trial in his thirty two dollars page opinion the hearing officer found the incidents in which taylor's chose to leave the classroom for personal reasons were not exercised appropriate professional judgment of the teacher found that the manner in case kailash left her class for in her intestinal distress demonstrated a lack of professional judgment because she failed to notify the administration failed to get approval for other teachers to cover now the school board adopted the hearing officers opinion in full and it became the final administrative decision in this matter the appellate court reviews the administrative decision not the decision of the circuit court the administrative decision is entitled to substantial deference under the standard review that made that question being argued left a definite and firm conviction that a mistake had been made in the school board's decision finding there was cause to discharge scale it was arbitrary unreasonable unrelated to the requirements of service now the trial court level the trial court reversed the hearing officers decision and so doing it created a drug court created a new rule called the specific kind of morning rule that got no basis in illinois law the specific on that morning that kailash of course now runs with advocates for if it became established law would mean that a school district only terminate a teacher in a rare instance where the teacher's conduct in the dismissal charters exactly matches the teacher's conduct in a previously issued notice to remedy if that was allowed have severe impact on the ability of school districts to dismiss teachers and offer the high quality education to students it's found charge to do how can the school district satisfy its responsibilities students to provide high quality learning environment it can even dismiss a teacher who refuses to teach and refuses to go to class if the legislature had wanted districts to be so ham strung and such a severe way it surely would have been more specific about it and the legislature knew how to be more specific about it as demonstrated in a very teacher tenure law that where the notice of remedy is located for example the legislature if it didn't tend to the specific it could have done so by using the words conduct bill it could particulars it did so elsewhere in the teacher tenure law so i know how to knew how to use those words but it didn't do it used the word causes instead and notification of causes in the notice to remedy is precisely what the school district in this case it notified cook kailash of a specific underlying problem and in this case it was the failure to exercise appropriate and professional judgment again appropriate  professional judgment being concepts pacifically delineated in the school board's policy manual now the trial court that created this new specific conduct morning rule concept because it was concerned with fairness or what it perceived to be a fairness reasons st the independent hearing officer function in the trial that the hearing officer provides over r r a bork against the unfairness because the hearing officer decides on a case by case basis as he did here after seeing the evidence and hearing the live witnesses whether the conduct in the dismissal charge is proven and whether the kind of violates an earlier issued a notice to remedy nd subsequent conduct must be a material breach of the where a substitute teacher left off was not a material breach of the notice provision that the the nose and number three there must be a logical nexus between the teacher's conduct issue and the dismissal charges and the teacher's fitness to perform as a teacher in the recent burgess case is the example here is that because of the already existing protections the truck was wrong to have to rewrite a lot of created a specific inclusion considerable due process was given to kailash an independent hearing officer determined that the school district had cause to dismiss or he heard the witnesses he has the experience and the credentials mandated by the state board of education his decision should not just be cast aside the trial court did and at the heart of the teacher tenure law is to improve illinois schools by helping to routine quality teachers the purpose is not to protect mister hudson do you have any question yes good morning mr smith you just referenced the burgess versus illinois state board of education case correct correct in that case the twenty six the notice to remedy was based upon failing to cooperate with the board's investigation of the c f s case and giving a truthful statements did everything to do with leaving a classroom early in the in the burgess case nexus between burgess's actions that led to his dismissal and its fitness to form a teacher and that still is the case here and that's one of the protections here is that they're not see a logical nexus between the teachers conduct issue in the dismiss charges and the teachers fitness to perform as a teacher that's what that was that was the holding of the burgess case that's that's why the the the the court reversed in that berg's case of course this case it was a separate issue was leaving the classroom repeatedly early was the allegation so the argument is how we should give a notice that leaving the classroom late could lead to her dismissal based on the earlier tw action so the conduct wasn't exactly the same but the causes were the underlying causes were the same and that's her lack of professionalism professionalism being a specifically delineated concept and term i n the school board's policy manual so the conduct and the same but the statute doesn't say we have to say give her this that he doesn't say that kind of has to be same the same from one time to the next because it's have to be the same in the underlying cause is the underlying flaw in ms kailash is character is or is your lack of professional again professionalism being a specifically delineated term how is this case distinguishable from the supreme court's holding in the bigs case so in bag bags was a teacher can't be terminated for a minor or understandable and minor breach of a previously issued notice to remedy  at the beginning the class trying to determine where the substitute teacher had left off so are you saying that the requirements to exercise professional judgment follow procedures than any anything that follows from that would be grounds for dismiss even though the conduct at issue was not specifically warned about that your position that's right the conduct does happen does not have to be the same one situation to the next it has to be the is the underlying causes and so even if the conduct is not the same and and you know there's there's another built in protection here and that's the independent hearing officer function the independent hearing officer is as i said bulwark between a school district you might try to abuse that the hearing officer stands in the stands in as the person who decides whether the notice how did the leave in the classroom early relate to her past deficiencies with not cooperating with the c f s what's the connection between that issue and the earlier issue  couple two things one key part of it is the cooperation element which was again is a term specifically stated in the school district policy manual it talks about specialist is cooperation cooperate ing school you're not cooperating that you go teachers but more importantly it's student centric professionalism means responsibility to students and in both cases in it's difficult because i understand your argument and has some logical appeal but carrying this thought was logical extension you're saying professionalism there was a warning about using professional judgment procedures i mean what if  the starts up shows of wearing inappropriate clothing could the board then fire her based upon that original warning letter that had nothing to do with wearing inappropriate clothing but yet said exercise professional judgment so could a teacher be fired for that because the school board things are closing is inappropriate although that was never specifically warned against that i think that would be a fact issue for the independent hearing officer who has mandated training for the state board of education it might be it might be but that's precisely the kind of back issue that an independent hearing officer would determine and so i think i think we can we can  can take comfort in the fact that that independent hearing officer is standing in to make those factual determination on a case by case basis for thank you mr smith that's all i have thank you that's a part that any questions what is our standard of review mr smith to the standard of review and again you're reviewing the the administrative decision for facts it's the manifest weight of the evidence standard and then applying those facts the laws the clearly erroneous standard of review and that's asking are you left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made by the school board there is there is an element to noble reviewing your just if you just look at the statute in isolation if you're applying facts to that statute and then it's the clearly erroneous standard and the notice of the notice that was provided  sixteen had to do with dishonesty correct problem with miss kailash was a professionalism and lack of it during the hearing was there any testimony on the impact of student performance on her to have student safety but here her actions destroyed this code teaching model the you had that you have two teachers in this classroom one is not the subject that the teach the certified teacher to teach the subject matter that's kailash she certified to teach the subject matter she has a coat teacher who is not certified to teach that subject matter she's there to assist students with for instance e s l students or students that require additional systems for reading that's her job in the classroom but taylor kind of took advantage of this quote teaching model knowing she could leave her coach teacher there not probably not compromise student safety but what it was doing was destroying this co teaching model you didn't have the kook you didn't have the subject matter teacher in the classroom and and when you don't have a subject matter teacher in the classroom i don't think there's any question that students aren't getting  aren't being offered that level of educational value which again is part of professionalism until ms you brought the this issue to the attention of the that the finding was required by the hearing officer he was required to make that finding any did find that the kind that was remedial however she was given and she was given a chance in two thousand and sixteen to remediate that conduct but but the conduct was not the same but the statute says cause and causes a different cause and a broader if it's not brought to her attention how does she how does she remedy this situation how she's given the opportunity to remediate look at christmas decorations she left early one day because she had an intestinal problem she went to make an airline reservation or any of these brought to her attention and said you can't do these things any further or were they not i mean when they say they were brought to the attention of the administration to later go ahead i'm sorry sir and i'm going to say in these are things that these are professionalism things things she should know about and things that the hearing officer in his experience said this but i think it's just a touch in the us to distinguish bags or talk to you about bags and justice for cat ask you about the standard of review i think bag bag kind of sets out a standard of review they found that it was on reasonable and unrelated to the they found was arbitrary because i'm related to there are quire months of service and they also said the only clear in material breach of the warning notice identify this exact conduct it could have said it would have because it because they they do that in other places the statute says another place is you've got to have a bill of particulars you've got a list specific conduct it doesn't do that here it says causes and an informed in order to remedy that that's the issue i am having and i i know what you're saying you're saying that that broad language was not to fire her for cause and just judge for conduct that's not conduct and and and to the extent that that seemed unfair to the trial court judge and it what i try to emphasize it's not unfair because of those three big reasons that i talked about because you've got a hearing officer standing in as a as a bulwark to any kind of school district that may try to be is the system because you've got the legal requirement that the legal requirement that you can't be terminated for later minor breaches and because number three there has to be a logical nexus to your there has to be that right that was logical that that logical nexus between their teachers kind of issue and the dismissal charges and how what is that that's my question what is teacher's fitness to perform as a teacher and the next is there is that if you're leaving the classroom all the time that shows your unprofessional and unfit to perform to having to perform to teach or you're not even in the classroom so i appreciate where you're going i'm still having a problem with the supreme court decision in the big case and how they basically worry that to rule the way you want to take i'm definitely not asking you to ignore that case in fact i think the big case to support my position and by the way the best case the hearing officer ruled against the school the school then turned around so we don't like that we're just dismissing here anyway and the court ultimately said we're upholding the hearing officer were he was he's the one who he or she was the one who heard the facts heard the witnesses we're going with the hearing officer and i'm asking you do the exact same thing here go with the hearing officer go with the hearing officer who heard the facts here apply the facts to law and to and determine the school district had cause to dismiss kailash and and again what the case is saying is she violated but it was minor it was minor here it was not my relation she was gone from the classroom all the time and for personal reasons so the bank's case is saying that even when there is a technical violation of the previously issued notice to remedy you it still has to be notice i know that i know some language about that but i don't think that's the central part of it i don't think that's a crucial part of his that that language about notice it  professional again professional being something that is delineated in the school policies concept attorneys delineated in the school policies and she was a professional and something something  special like leaving the classroom as in the manner she did you know she has to be presumed to know that's not that's unprofessional do you think that th i think that she i think you said you know i think it's i think it was probably remediable and in fact we acknowledged it was remediable but you know how it you know part of the part of the reason that this ten year law allows you to state the causes as opposed to underlying conduct is because you can never be quite totally precise about about about listing these things if next if you know next year kailash instead of leaving the classroom takes a nap during class that's a pretty that's the kind of thing where she said standard of review the district mistake here is that it seems to think that the court failed to provide it with some extra level of deference that it simply was not entitled to under the clearly erroneous and like the focus d or response of the district's focus on the use of the word cause is over the word condom in the school quote that's just simply without merit for two important reasons st it's utterly disingenuous for the district to even make that argument because the district itself uses the word conduct throughout the two thousand and sixteen notice to remedy if you look at that notice it says the following are on the issues which if repeated will result in charges will result in charges for dismissal second and perhaps more importantly the supreme court and beg clearly was focused on the teacher's conduct when it interpreted and applied section twenty four supreme court there in finding that they did not materially reach her notice to remedy the court's stated the board's concerns in the remedial warning seemed to be spawned from the point of later rivals a lack of lesson plans to court then  prior notice the circuit court here correctly apply that same logic the broad directives to exercise appropriate professional judgment and to conduct yourself in a professional manner which were continuing to be wishes to notice to remedy must have been included only and they relate to her alleged dishonesty which was the sole and specific subject of that prior notice and just as the supreme court and begs found the circuit court here correctly saw through the district so the district chose d to move from the dismissal slowly doing of the fact that cayless had this prior notice to remedy from twenty six dollars schools which the district admitted was issued to cater specifically for alleged dishonesty during an unrelated district investigation and that the district further admitted that notice to remedy had nothing to do with it was leaving the classroom and that her dismissal in two thousand and eighteen had nothing to do with any alleged dishonesty or lack of cooperation during the district act making the argument that the district made this idea that the circuit court stablished some specific conduct and warning will that simply not the case that the specific warning rule is explicitly set forth in section twenty four dashed well the of the school code the fact that it uses causes vs conduct in that particular provision doesn't change the propriety of the circuit court's ruling in this case the circuit court correctly applied that taking your big degree would give any school district carte blanche to fire a tenured teacher for any reason so long as there was a prior notice to remedy that contained some very very long catch all directives like act professionally follow policy exercise appropriate judgment etc etc clearly that's not what the legislator intended when they enacted section forty four days twelve the school this is the courts in illinois have long and i guess i'll leave it with that and open up for your question no thank you thank you chips yes counsel and wanted to ask you some questions in the context of what goes on in the real world i think admittedly the notice back originally  related to the do c f s investigation issues of dishonesty we agree on that correct it was alleged dishonest but then the notice also the remedial no warning required the planet to exercise appropriate quote unquote in professional judgment conduct herself in a recession a manner and to follow all the boards policies procedures and practices that was part of the warning correct and it wasn't more specific than that it is a listen to the arguments i'm struck by this thought i mean how far is that language not important i mean can we convey a situation may seem a little bit of a stretch where a teacher  shows up for work late constantly and gets the warning about that and then the teacher does as was alleged here is leaving the class world during the day and have leaving the other teacher alone and then we'll get a warning on that and then so the next time the teacher starts leaving work early is it appropriate then for the teacher to defend on the basis whether this missile is sought hey wait a minute this isn't leaving the classroom during the day this isn't it we're having late i'm just leaving early nobody warned me about that t the hearing in that in that hypothetical i don't think that i would issue with that as you in this case where alleged dishonesty is obviously very factually dissimilar from occasionally stepping away from the classroom and the bags kate says the directives that are in the notice to remedy there's no there's no prohibition about against having a a broad directive in a notice to remedy however those broad directives after me now are we tailored to the specific kind of which which triggered or spawned that prior notice so that if the district relies on it for some subsequent discipline that subsequent discipline has to be or dismissal has to be again causally related to that prior conduct and in that case the late arrivals and the alleged misuse of exact words were used but i do believe something along those lines yes five i'm reading from your brief any conduct that disrupts the educational process would you agree that we early on repeated occasions would disrupt the educational is that the district admitted that that was remediable and so therefore the question is simply whether that when the conduct was ready ready alleged dishonesty now the language that that language and in order to remedy needs in order for it to be used for subsequent discipline it would have to be in this case anything that disrupts the educational process as it relates to agree that you know the teacher acts in local brothers you are in the place of the parent so abandoning your students and leaving early why would you even need a warning about that well again st of all the where she thought the way from the folks on classroom i believe i believe it was you just as with that as if there was evidence about the actual disruption to the classroom and there was quite a bit of evidence at the administrat hearing that there was no disruption to the classroom in any of the specific instances all of the students in their course work for the day no one got hurt there were no incidents and everyone graduated the believe they were in  grade at the end of the year so they're the facts and we both support the assumption that what she did actually did this wrong the classroom thank you that's all i have thank you very much mr fein i think your opponent and kept bring up a good point is it's clear that the conduct was not proper is that enough to  this behavior is clearly not something that is in line with the way a teacher should conduct themselves it's obvious is that enough for the behavior to fall under the tw admonition and why not well we would argue it's not as far as they will be cause for dismissal there again you're absolutely correct the teacher admits that  was not properly havior and the argument that you and the union and the teacher are making here is that this is all other remediable conduct unrelated to the prior notice to remedy which should be the subject of its own separate notice to remedy so that if they wish would be specifically warned have an opportunity to remedy their conduct and then if she does continue to even it then the investigation a notice to remedy from the from the start that having been raised not appeal here but that is sort of adds credence to why we believe that this notice to remedy  not be used as a basis for this completely unrelated conduct we took the position that that notice should have never been issued in the st place ok thank you company you have an this quite frankly this would be a horrible outcome and a detriment to good school operations instead what i'm saying is that you've got an independent hearing officer ready to strange train by the state board of education and ready to make that factual to apply the facts the law and make that factual determination each and every case about whether the the causes for one instance to the next is that you've got that buil tension and furthermore you've got the other two protections you can't subsequent conduct must be a material breach of a previously issued notice to remedy as opposed to an understandable and minor breach and there must be a logical nexus between the teacher's conduct issue and the dismissal charges and the teachers that this to perform as a teacher you've got those three protections in there so we don't have to we don't have to put in this rule the council think that you can never dismiss a teacher unless her later bad conduct is the exact same instead we can do just instead you can affirm the school board in this case scheme but i again we don't have to go a counsel saying that we don't have to go with counsel position that you could never dismiss a teacher unless her later bad conduct is the exact same we just don't have to do it we've got protect specific conduct you've got to give her notice of this you've got to put her on notice of the specific conduct and to me that means he's saying that you can't dismiss a teacher unless her