Opinion ID: 1198945
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Compliance With the Policies

Text: School board policy INB-R provides: The teaching of controversial issues and the selection and use of controversial learning resources requires the recognition of responsibilities by the teacher to students, by the principal to the school and by the school to the community. The Guidelines for teachers to implement this policy are set out as follows: Guidelines for teachers The teacher will adhere to the following guidelines: 1. Teaching about controversial issues and use of controversial learning resources are permitted in accordance with this regulation as long as the issue or resource is relevant to the curriculum objectives of the course. 2. Issues and learning resources selected for discussion and study must be appropriate for instructional use and contribute to the attainment of the educational objectives of the course. 3. Teachers will follow the approved district curriculum subject matter. All course content and activities must be consistent with stated course objectives. 4. The issues and learning resources should be within the level of the student's ability and maturity and consistent with community standards. 5. In teaching about controversial issues or using controversial learning resources, developing the students' skills of critical thinking and problem-solving and understanding of the democratic process will be the principle [sic] goals. 6. Teaching strategies should be fairly employed so that all sides of the issues are explored. 7. Suitable materials including facts and concepts relating to all aspects of the issue should be available. 8. The principal must be informed in writing of all planned teaching of controversial issues or use of controversial learning resources as soon as reasonably possible and, in any case, not less than 20 working days in advance of their presentation to students. Such notification must include an identification of the controversial issue or resource, a description of the proposal and a statement of the educational purpose of the proposal. Contrary to the findings of the hearing officer, the Board found that Wilder did not show the film 1900 in accordance with the standards and procedures established by school district policy and regulation. Because Wilder's actions were not inconsistent with the Board's policies, I disagree with the Board's finding. In ordering the dismissal of a teacher, pursuant to sections 22-63-101 to -403, 7 C.R.S. (1997), a school board is bound by the hearing officer's findings of evidentiary fact if those findings are adequately supported by the record. See Board of Educ. of West Yuma v. Flaming, 938 P.2d 151, 157 (Colo. 1997). In reviewing the termination of a teacher, a reviewing court is likewise bound by the hearing officer's findings of fact so long as they are supported by the record. See Adams County Sch. Dist. No. 50 v. Heimer, 919 P.2d 786, 791 (Colo.1996). One of the hearing officer's key functions in factfinding is to review the evidence and testimony and make determinations as to the credibility of witnesses. See Blaine v. Moffat County Sch. Dist. RE No. 1, 748 P.2d 1280, 1286-87 (Colo.1988). The Board in this case, although it rejected the hearing officer's recommendation for retention, accepted the hearing officer's findings of fact in its Resolution and Order of Dismissal. I agree with the Board that the hearing officer's findings are supported by the record. However, in my view, given that the standards imposed by the regulations are so opaque as to be unknowable with reasonable certainty, the Board erred in determining that Wilder had failed to follow Board regulations INB and INB-R. The hearing officer found that (1) the film 1900 was suitable for the curriculum and appropriate for the maturity level of his class, and (2) Wilder, in his professional judgment, believed the film was appropriate in light of the standards of the community and not controversial. Policy INB provides that the classroom teacher decides whether the learning resource requires clearance with the principal: Due consideration must be given to the maturity and ability of the students, standards of the community, and sound professional judgment. It is unclear precisely for what purpose criteria 1 to 8 in policy INB-R are to be applied, and by whom. Thus, the relative importance of the teacher's decision regarding the level of controversy surrounding a learning resource is unclear, rendering the policies' requirements even more indeterminate. The steps embodied in criteria 1 to 8 may be intended to guide the teacher in determining whether written notice to the principal is to be given, as well as serving as a guide to teaching about controversial and sensitive issues. The hearing officer's findings are supported by evidence in the record demonstrating that the film met criteria 1 to 7 of Board policy INB-R. The hearing officer agreed with Dr. Kearns that 1900 has literary and artistic value and was appropriate for 17 and 18 year olds to watch in a course on debate since the very nature of a debate class is to look at different viewpoints. The showing of the film accorded with the district's policy as follows: it: (1) met the curriculum objectives (criterion 1), (2) was appropriate for instructional use (criterion 2), (3) was consistent with course objectives (criterion 3), (4) was within the level of the student's ability and maturity (criterion 4), (5) supported development of critical thinking and problem-solving and understanding of the democratic process (criterion 5), (6) was fairly employed (criterion 6), and (7) included facts and concepts relating to all aspects of the issue being taught (criterion 7). Because Wilder, in his professional judgment, did not deem the resource to be a controversial learning resource as utilized in the curriculum for his class, the proper application of criterion 8, clearance of the resource through the principal, is uncertain. The policies do not explain whether clearance of the resource is necessary when the teacher has determined that the resource is not controversial. The problem with this indefinite policy is underscored in a scenario, like this one, where the teacher's decision appears proper. Wilder's exercise of professional judgment in this regard was shared by educators and film experts whose testimony the hearing officer accepted and believed. Wilder was teaching high school logic and debate. Logic and debate require controversy; in the absence thereof, debate is impossible. The curriculum anticipated that the teacher of this particular course would necessarily engage in presenting controversial subject matter. One definition of debate in Webster's Dictionary is controversy. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 582 (1961) (meaning 2a). Taken at its plain meaning, policy INB's reference to controversial learning resources and controversial issues becomes almost nonsensical when applied to Wilder's class. Wilder's job assignment was to spark debate and lead his students along the path of critical thinking. He was not required to clear each and every controversy he intended to use. The school had approved Schindler's List in connection with an off-campus viewing of that film; Wilder had reason to believe, in comparing the two, that showing 1900 would not be controversial. With regard to community standards, all students in the class were at least seventeen, old enough to watch the movie by renting it from a video store or watching it in a theater without parental permission. Most, if not all, of the logic and debate students were about to graduate and enter into the adult world, a particularly appropriate time to view such a film that focuses on the rites of passage of two boys during a turbulent period in history when the democratic countries were struggling against the fascist and Nazi regimes for their survival. Grandparents of Wilder's students were involved in this worldwide struggle. The hearing officer believed Wilder when he stated that the film was appropriate, not controversial, given the context of his job assignment and the class he was teaching. This is not a case in which the teacher knew a film was inappropriate but showed it anyway in an attempt to defy school authority. Rather, the teacher here made a reasonable attempt to follow the curriculum, and exercised reasoned judgment in accordance with the policies, in utilizing the film. He previewed and discussed the film with the students before proceeding. After it was shown, all but two of the students agreed that the film was appropriate. Short of sending all resources to the principal that are not on a specified lista policy not in effect in Jefferson Countya teacher must exercise reasoned judgment under the existing policies in determining whether a resource is a controversial learning resource for his or her class. The policies did not prohibit the showing of R rated films, so long as they were utilized in pursuit of the curriculum, nor did the policies specify that use of R rated films required clearance by the principal. The majority, like the Board, in finding that criterion 8 of INB-R had been violated (controversial learning resource requires twenty days advance notice in writing to the principal), ignores the hearing officer's pertinent findings of fact that the film met the curriculum objectives and was suitable for the age and maturity of the class. Nevertheless, the Board terminated Wilder, relying tautologically on the existence of a controversy to demonstrate that the film was a controversial learning resource. As discussed above, it appears that Wilder may have actually complied with the requirements of the policies. However, the obscurity of the policies' standards makes a definitive answer to this question impossible. Therefore I turn to the question of whether this obscurity renders the policies so vague as to prevent their use in justification of firing Wilder.