Title: Garrison v. Red Clay Consolidated School District
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 495, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 23, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
W. DENVER GARRISON, Jr., 
§
§
No. 495, 2009
Petitioner Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below: 
 
§
v.
§
Court of Chancery of the
§
State of Delaware
 
RED CLAY CONSOLIDATED 
§
SCHOOL DISTRICT, 
§
§
Respondent Below,
§
C.A. No. 3385 (VCL)
Appellee.
§
Submitted:  July 21, 2010
Decided:  August 23, 2010
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY,
Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.
Upon appeal from the Court fo Chancery.  REVERSED and REMANDED.
Timothy J. Wilson, Esquire (argued), The Wilson Firm, LLC, Newark, Delaware, for
Appellant.
Barry M. Willoughby, Esquire (argued), Adria B. Martinelli, Esquire and Lauren
Hudecki, Esquire, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware,
for Appellee.
BERGER, Justice:
2
This is an appeal by a public school teacher who claims that he was wrongfully
terminated for failing to complete a required mentoring program.  Appellant
participated in the mentoring program during his first two years, but did not attend all
the mentoring sessions during his third year.  At issue is whether that third year of
mentoring was required, given Appellant’s prior teaching experience in another state.
The school district interprets the relevant regulation to mean that any teacher with less
than three years of experience is a “new teacher,” subject to the three year mentoring
program.  The school district’s interpretation, however, cannot be reconciled with
another regulation governing mentoring.  The only way to harmonize the regulations
is to read them to mean that a teacher in the position of Appellant is an “experienced
teacher,” subject to 60 hours of mentoring.  Accordingly, we reverse.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In August 2004, W. Denver Garrison, Jr. was hired as a drama teacher at the Cab
Calloway High School in the Red Clay School District.  Garrison had taught in the
Ohio public school system from 1983 - 85, and his Ohio teaching license was still valid
when he applied for the position at Cab Calloway.  Between 1985 and 1993,  Garrison
taught at two universities for a total of two years.  During that time, when he was not
teaching, Garrison devoted his efforts to acting and directing.  From 1993 to 2004,
Garrison earned most of his income working in information technology.
3
The Delaware Department of Education (DDOE) issued Garrison an initial
license, as a teacher of music, effective from August 23, 2004 - August 31, 2007.
When he started work, Julianne Tankersley, the Red Clay Mentoring Coordinator,  told
Garrison that he would have to complete the three year mentoring program for new
teachers.  She was aware of Garrison’s prior experience, but decided that he should be
treated as a new teacher because he had not taught for nearly 20 years.  Garrison
objected, arguing that he should have been placed in the 60 hour mentoring program
designed for experienced teachers new to the State.
Garrison completed the first two years of the mentoring program.  He had
difficulty attending some of the scheduled meetings, however, because they conflicted
with rehearsals for school drama productions.  Red Clay was flexible during the first
two years, and allowed Garrison to make-up missed sessions.  Garrison did not
complete the third year of the mentoring program.  Red Clay had less flexibility that
year, and Garrison chose not to have others cover for him at  rehearsals in order to
attend the mentoring sessions.  In the spring of 2007, the principal at Cab Calloway
recommended to Red Clay that Garrison’s contract not be renewed, for failure to
complete the mentoring program.  On April 19, 2007, Red Clay sent Garrison a
termination letter.
Garrison requested and was granted a post-termination hearing, after which
Superintendent Robert Andrzejewski upheld the decision.  Garrison filed suit on
Oceanport Industries, Inc. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Inc., 636 A.2d 892, 900 (Del. 1994) (Citations
1
omitted.).
4
December 4, 2007.  The Court of Chancery granted Red Clay’s motion for summary
judgment, holding that Garrison was required to complete the three year mentoring
program, and that he was properly terminated for failing to do so. This appeal
followed.
DISCUSSION
The parties agree that Garrison’s initial license expired in August 2007, and that,
without a valid license, he could not continue to teach.  It is also undisputed that
Garrison did not complete the three year mentoring program required of new teachers.
The only question is whether Garrison was properly classified as a new teacher for
purposes of the mentoring requirement.  To answer that question, the Court must
construe DDOE’s mentoring regulations.
The Court’s goal, in construing statutes and regulations, is to ascertain and give
effect to the intent of the legislative body.  If the regulation is ambiguous, settled rules
of statutory construction guide the Court:
[E]ach part or section [of the regulation] should be read in light of every
other part or section to produce an harmonious whole.  Undefined words
. . . must be given their ordinary, common meaning.  Additionally, words
in a [regulation] should not be construed as surplusage if there is a
reasonable construction which will give them meaning, and courts must
ascribe a purpose to the use of [regulatory] language, if reasonably
possible.1
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Mundorf, 659 A.2d 215, 220 (Del. 1995).
2
14 Del. C. § 1210 -1213.
3
14 Del. C. § 1210 (e).  Although not relevant to this appeal, we note that there are circumstances
4
under which an initial license may be extended for one year.
14 Del. C. § 1210 (b).
5
14 Del. C. § 1211-1212.
6
5
Courts generally will defer to an administrative body’s interpretation of its own rules
unless that interpretation is clearly erroneous.   The parties tacitly agree, and the Court
2
finds, that the regulation in question is ambiguous.  Thus, the Court must interpret the
regulation using the rules summarized above.
By statute, there are three tiers of teaching licenses – initial, continuing, and
advanced.   An initial license is valid for 3 years and cannot be renewed.   It is issued
3
4
to new teachers and it may be issued to teachers who taught in another jurisdiction for
less than 3 years.  A teacher holding an initial license, who intends to apply for a
continuing license, must “complete professional development and mentoring activities
as may be required by rules and regulations . . . .”   
5
A continuing license is valid for 5 years and is renewable.  It is issued to
teachers holding an initial license who:  1) complete the mentoring requirements, and
2) receive no more than one unsatisfactory evaluation.  A continuing license also may
be issued to a teacher with 3 or more years of successful teaching experience in another
jurisdiction.   An advanced license is valid for 10 years, and is issued to teachers who
6
14 Del. C. § 1213.
7
14 Del. Admin. C. § 1503-3.1.
8
14 Del. Admin. C. § 1503-4.4.
9
14 Del. Admin. C. § 1503-4.2.
10
14 Del. Admin. C. § 1503-5.1.
11
6
receive National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification.7
The State Board of Education adopted regulations governing, among other
things,  mentoring requirements for educators.  The regulations identify three types of
educators:  1) those who are new to the profession; 2) those who are experienced, but
new to Delaware; and 3) those who are experienced, but new to the employing
authority.  Educators who hold an initial license and are new to the profession must
complete the three year, New Educator Mentoring Program.   Experienced teachers
8
who are new to Delaware, and hold an initial license,  must participate in 60 hours of
the New Educator Mentoring Program.   Experienced teachers who are new to
9
Delaware, and hold a continuing or advanced license, must participate in a one year
“Department sponsored mentoring program . . . .”   Finally, experienced teachers who
10
move to a different employing authority, and hold a continuing or advanced license,
must complete “an employing authority sponsored mentoring program . . . .”11
14 Del. Admin. C. § 1503-2.
12
Garrison v. Red Clay Cons. School Dist., 2009 WL 23660000 at *4 (Del. Ch.).
13
7
The regulations define a “new educator” as someone who holds an initial
license, and an “experienced educator” as someone who holds a continuing or
advanced license.   But there is no definition of “experienced teacher,” which is the
12
term that controls this matter.  Red Clay defines “experienced teacher” to mean one
who has taught for at least three years.  It relies on affidavits from Mary Ellen Kotz,
the Education Associate for Professional Accountability/Mentoring Induction and
Certification for DDOE, in support of that definition. 
Kotz drafted a document titled, “Regulatory Guidance for New Teacher to the
Profession,” which explains the mentoring requirements and is provided to all new
teachers.  That document says that a teacher with less than three years’ experience is
“new to the profession” and must complete the three year mentoring program.
According to Kotz, there is only one New Educator Mentoring Program and it is
required for all teachers holding an initial license, regardless of their prior experience.
For those, like Garrison, with less than three years’ prior experience,  Kotz says that
the site coordinator has discretion to start the teacher at a later part of the mentoring
program.  
The trial court deferred to Red Clay’s interpretation of the mentoring
regulations, finding that to be a  reasonable “way out of this interpretive morass.”  But
13
8
the trial court made no effort to determine whether Red Clay’s interpretation could be
applied consistently and still make sense.  According to Red Clay, a teacher “new to
the profession” is anyone with less than 3 years of teaching experience.  Thus, under
14 Del. Admin. C. § 1503-3.1, a teacher  who holds an initial license and has less than
3 years of experience, would be required to comply with the full New Educator
Mentoring Program.  This interpretation works fine when applied to a teacher who is
not new to Delaware.  Such a teacher would have been “new to the profession” at the
outset, and would have been required to take the full mentoring program.  Classifying
that teacher as “new to the profession” during the second and third year of teaching
does no violence to the overall regulatory scheme.
Red Clay’s interpretation breaks down, however, when applied to the second
category of teacher – one who is new to the State, but not, literally, new to the
profession.  Under 14 Del. Admin. C. § 1503-4, experienced teachers who are new to
the State must participate in different levels of mentoring depending on their level of
experience.  Those who hold an initial license must take 60 hours of the New Educator
Mentoring Program, and those who hold continuing or advanced licenses must take a
different, one year, mentoring program.  If one must have taught for at least three years
to be an “experienced teacher,” no one would qualify for the 60 hours of mentoring
required for “experienced teachers new to the State of Delaware who hold Initial
14 Del. Admin. C. § 1511-3.0 (“The Department shall issue a continuing license to an applicant
14
licensed as an educator in another jurisdiction who provides evidence of having completed three (3)
or more years of successful teaching experience . . . .”).
9
Licenses . . . .”  That is because anyone new to the State who has three or more years
of teaching experience would have a continuing license, not an initial license.14
Red Clay says that a teacher from another state who taught for three or more
years but did not teach “successfully” would not be issued a continuing license.
Instead, such a teacher would have an initial license and satisfy Red Clay’s definition
of “experienced teacher.”  This explanation is strained, at best.  If a teacher does not
have three years of “successful” teaching experience for purposes of obtaining a
continuing license, it would make no sense for Red Clay to credit that teacher with
three years of experience for purposes of reducing the mentoring requirement.
Red Clay effectively rewrote 14 Del. Admin. C. § 1503-4.4 by changing a
mandatory provision into one that is discretionary.  From Red Clay’s perspective, the
“default” rule is that everyone holding an initial license must take the full New
Educator Mentoring Program.  A teacher with experience in another jurisdiction may
be allowed to forego one or more of the four cycles that constitute the entire program,
at the discretion of the site coordinator.  This approach is not unreasonable, but it is not
in the regulations.  Under 14 Del. Admin. C. § 1503-4.4, experienced teachers holding
initial licenses “shall” complete the mentoring program, which “shall” consist of no
10
more than 60 hours.  Deference to an administrative agency’s interpretation of its
regulations cannot go so far as to authorize a regulation other than the one that was
duly adopted.  
In sum, we conclude that Red Clay’s interpretation of its regulation is clearly
erroneous.  It appears that there are, or were, other issues that were not addressed by
the trial court, because its holding that Garrison failed to complete the mandatory
mentoring program rendered the other issues moot.  This Court’s decision, likewise,
is limited to the one issue presented on appeal.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Court of Chancery is reversed and
this matter is remanded for further action in accordance with this opinion.  Jurisdiction
is not retained.