Opinion ID: 2207800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dick and Kruger

Text: Dick and Kruger asserted that the Board abused its discretion in not renewing their contracts for [c]ause due to incompetence because there was no satisfactory evidence of incompetence before the Board. We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion. In the context of a teacher's contract, incompetency has varied meanings. It is clear that a lack of that knowledge required to be taught to one's students would constitute incompetency, as would the inability of a teacher to impart such knowledge effectively to his students. But incompetency is not necessarily so confined, and may relate, and not uncommonly does, to other aspects of the teacher's performance of classroom duties, such as the maintenance of discipline. In addition, matters such as the physical mistreatment of students may be held to prove incompetency upon the part of the teacher. And it may be held that a physical inability to perform the duties of a teacher will sustain a finding of incompetency. Annot., What constitutes incompetency or inefficiency as a ground for dismissal or demotion of public school teacher, 4 A.L.R.3d 1090, 1094-1095 (1965) [Footnotes omitted]. Although incompetency does not invoke subjective analysis of standards of morality or professionalism which vary from individual to individual dependent on time, circumstances or custom [ Perez v. Commission on Professional Competence, 149 Cal.App.3d 1167, 197 Cal.Rptr. 390, 396 (1983)], it generally encompasses deficiencies in personality, composure, judgment and attitude which have a detrimental effect upon a teacher's effectiveness. Hamburg v. North Penn School Dist., 86 Pa.Cmwlth. 371, 484 A.2d 867, 870 (1984). Incompetence connotes a lack of some requisite ability. In this case, Superintendent Bear King presented the Board with his evaluations of Dick and Kruger during 1986. Dick and Kruger had used an individualized teaching approach to mathematics which permitted the students to progress at different speeds. Dick and Kruger had taught mathematics at the school for five years and had been team teaching the students during the last two years. In his evaluations Bear King noted various deficiencies, including a lack of individualized lesson plans for the students or groups; lack of anticipatory sets and objectives; inadequate communication with and lack of positive reinforcement of the students; and a general lack of organization in the classroom. Classes did not start on time and, according to Bear King, Kruger did not tend to each student during the class period. Bear King further testified that, based on his observational visits, Dick did not demonstrate that he could use his knowledge ... and apply it to the classroom. Dick and Kruger introduced SRA test scores of their students in an attempt to show that the students' achievements in mathematics were greater than their composite score in other areas tested. However, in four of the five classes shown, the results also showed that the students were, on a class average, significantly below grade level in their mathematics achievement. This caused board members to question why their children were receiving A's and B's in mathematics, but were functioning well below their grade level. In addition, board members questioned the propriety of the teachers' revelation of SRA test scores of individual students at the hearing. This record tells us that the board members discussed the evidence and questioned the participants during relatively lengthy proceedings. We agree with the trial court that the Board had sufficient information before it to determine, in good faith, that the reasons given for the nonrenewal of Dick and Kruger were substantiated. We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in not renewing the teaching contracts of Dick and Kruger. Accordingly, the summary judgments are affirmed. ERICKSTAD, C.J., and GIERKE, J., concur.