Court Opinion

ID: 9699686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:46:32.609897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:55.706434
License: Public Domain

OPINION
LARSEN, Justice.
On June 29, 1976, appellee, the Board of Directors of the Riverside School District [hereinafter Board], voted to eliminate several teaching positions for the 1976-77 school year, due to a substantial decrease in student enrollment in the district. On July 22, 1976, the district superintendent notified appellants, Jule Carmody and Kathleen Holmes, that they were suspended. The Board refused appellants’ request for a hearing, and appellants brought a mandamus action in the Common Pleas Court of Lackawanna County.1 On August 25, 1977, following a non-jury, de novo hearing, the common pleas court found that appellants were improperly suspended and ordered the Board to reinstate appellants to their former positions. The common pleas court, en banc, *469dismissed the Board’s exceptions, and the Board filed a direct appeal to the Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court found that appellants were properly suspended by the Board and reversed the common pleas court order. Board of School Directors of Riverside School District v. Carmody, 47 Pa.Commw. 201, 408 A.2d 885 (1979). This Court granted appellants’ petition for allowance of appeal on May 30, 1980.
Since the issues raised in this appeal concern whether appellants were properly suspended, a brief overview of the procedure, then in existence, for suspending a professional employe follows.
When a school board decides to make a reduction in its staff of professional employes, the district superintendent suspends the employes based on the efficiency rank of the employes determined in accordance with the standards and regulations set forth on rating cards prepared by the Department of Public Instruction.2 Each professional employe is rated by the district superintendent of schools on a scale of 0 to 80, with 80 being the highest possible rating.3 This rating is the professional employe’s unweighted efficiency rating. If there is no substantial difference in these unweighted efficiency ratings of the professional employes, suspensions must be made according to seniority as accumulated in the involved school district.4 If there is, however, a substantial difference in the unweighted efficiency ratings, the ratings are to be weighted by adding a point to each employe’s unweighted efficiency rating for each year of service in the involved school district.5 In which case, sus*470pensions are to be made according to the weighted efficiency ratings.6
I. KATHLEEN HOLMES
In its decision to suspend several teachers for the 1976-77 school year, the Board voted to suspend one of six teachers in its business education department. For the 1975-76 school year, Kathleen Holmes, a business education teacher, had an unweighted efficiency rating of 95, a weighted efficiency rating of 101, and three years of employment in the school district.7 Another teacher in this department had an unweighted efficiency rating of 106, a weighted efficiency rating of 110, and two years of employment in the school district. The district superintendent determined that an eight point difference in unweighted efficiency ratings was substantial. Since there was an eleven point difference between Holmes’ unweighted efficiency rating and the rating of another teacher, the superintendent used the weighted efficiency ratings to determine which teacher to suspend. Accordingly, the superintendent suspended Holmes, who had the lowest weighted efficiency rating.
At the hearing de novo, the hearing court made a finding of fact that a sixteen point difference in unweighted efficiency ratings is a substantial difference as opposed to an eight point difference. Consequently, the hearing court determined that Holmes was improperly suspended, since there was no substantial difference in efficiency ratings (eleven points), and Holmes had more years of employment in the district than a teacher who was retained by the Board.
*471The Commonwealth Court determined that the hearing court’s finding of fact was erroneous. The Commonwealth Court gave the following reason for this determination:
Our review in this case is just like the responsibility of the court below: to determine whether or not there was a violation of constitutional rights, an error of law or manifest abuse of discretion. At the hearing de novo no evidence was introduced to show that the District superintendent’s calculation of a substantial difference in rating points was arbitrary or capricious and therefore an abuse of discretion. This Court has previously construed the term “substantial difference” to mean a real, considerable or important difference. Gabriel v. Trinity Area School District, [22 Pa.Cmwlth. 620, 350 A.2d 203], supra. We have previously concluded that a difference of six points, Smith v. Richland School District, 36 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 150, 387 A.2d 974 (1978), was not an unreal, inconsiderable or unimportant difference. Likewise we here conclude that the superintendent’s determination of eight points as a substantial difference was reasonable and neither arbitrary nor capricious, regard 11 points as a substantial difference, and reverse the order of reinstatement of Kathleen Holmes.
Holmes asserts that this reasoning of the Commonwealth Court is erroneous. We agree. Since this was a hearing de novo, the hearing court was not required to review the determination of the district superintendent, but was required to make its own findings of fact and determination. Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 53, § 11308(a). Furthermore, the Commonwealth Court’s standard of review is limited to a determination of whether the hearing court’s finding of fact was supported by substantial evidence. In applying this standard, this Court has held that a finding of fact will not be reversed on appeal unless it is totally unsupported by the record. Republic Steel Corp. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, 492 Pa. 1, 421 A.2d 1060 (1980).
Before applying the above standard to the hearing court’s finding of fact, it should be noted that there is little useful *472statutory or common law authority dispositive of what constitutes a substantial difference in efficiency ratings. The term “substantial difference” has no statutory definition and no practical common law definition.8 Furthermore, the question of what evidence a fact finder may base a determination of substantial difference on has not been answered by the legislature or the courts. It is, therefore, not surprising that in 1979 the legislature repealed Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 24, § 11-1125, and replaced it with a statute that bases the order of suspension solely on the basis of seniority.9
The record of the hearing de novo discloses that Dr. John Rooney, an administrator in the school district, stated that in his opinion a difference of sixteen points in unweighted efficiency ratings out of a possible 160 points would constitute a substantial difference. The record further indicates the following qualifications of Dr. Rooney: that he has been employed for thirteen years in the field of education; that he has been a principal of an elementary school in the school district for nine years; that he has a bachelor of science degree in elementary education, a master’s degree in elementary education, and a doctorate degree in administration of education; and that his duties include rating teachers in accordance with Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 24, § 11-1128.
Although there has been no rule established concerning the type of evidence that a fact finder may base a *473determination of substantial difference on, the opinion of a qualified administrator, such as Dr. Rooney, is as probative as any other type of evidence on this issue. Consequently, the hearing court’s finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence.
II. JULE CARMODY
The Board also voted to suspend one of four teachers in its music department. Jule Carmody, a teacher in the school district’s music department, had an unweighted efficiency rating for the 1975-76 school year that was twenty-three points lower than the lowest unweighted efficiency rating of the other three music teachers. Carmody’s efficiency rating was neither supported by anecdotal records nor based on classroom observation. Carmody had the second highest years of employment among the four teachers in the department and the lowest weighted efficiency rating in the department. The district superintendent determined that an eight point difference in efficiency ratings was substantial, and suspended Carmody, since she had the lowest weighted efficiency rating.
At the hearing de novo, the hearing court held that Carmody was improperly suspended, since she was suspended on the basis of an efficiency rating that was unsupported by anecdotal records. In reversing the holding of the hearing court, the Commonwealth Court held that, in the case of suspensions, efficiency ratings need not be supported by anecdotal records.
Carmody asserts that a professional employe may not be suspended, where the suspension’ is based upon efficiency ratings that are unsupported by anecdotal records. We agree.
As stated previously, suspensions must be based upon the efficiency rank of the employes made in accordance with the standards and regulations set forth on the rating cards prepared by the Department of Public Instruction. Pa.Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § ll-1125(a). The rating card prepared by the Department of Public Instruction, Rating Card DEBE-333, states, “Ratings should have the support of anecdotal rec*474ords.” We agree with the Commonwealth Court’s holding in New Castle Area School District v. Bair, 28 Pa.Commw. 240, 368 A.2d 345 (1977), wherein it held that the procedure of supporting ratings by anecdotal records is mandatory; thus, efficiency ratings unsupported by anecdotal records are invalid.10 This rule prevents the very inequity that was present in this case. Since Carmody’s efficiency rating was neither supported by anecdotal records nor based on classroom observations, it is difficult to conclude that her rating was based on anything but conjecture. Given Carmody’s seniority, it was improper to suspend her.
We, therefore, reverse the Commonwealth Court’s order upholding the suspension of appellants and reinstate the order of the court of common pleas that reinstated the appellants to their teaching positions together with back-pay and all benefits of employment.
NIX, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which McDER-MOTT, J., joins.

. Pursuant to Local Agency Law, appellants were entitled to a hearing before the Board prior to being suspended. Fatscher v. Board of School District, Springfield School District; 28 Pa.Commw. 170, 367 A.2d 1130 (1977); Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 53, § 11301 et. seq. (repealed 1978). However, appellants and the Board agreed that they did not want to have the case sent back to the Board for a hearing but wanted a hearing de novo before the court of common pleas. Consequently, the posture of this case when it was brought to the common pleas court was a de novo hearing pursuant to an appeal from an adjudication of a local agency. Local Agency Law, Pa.Stat. Ann. tit. 53, § 11308(b) (repealed 1978). This statute has been substantially reenacted by Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 2, §§ 551-555, 751-754.

. Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 24, § 11-1125(a) (repealed 1979). This statute has been replaced by Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 24, § 11-1125.1.

. Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 24, § 11-1123, 22 Pa.Admin.Code § 351.21 (Rating Card DEBE-333).

. Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 24, § 11-1125(b) (repealed 1979); Board of Education of Fairview School District v. Tomb, 40 Pa.Commw. 458, 397 A.2d 1268 (1979).

. Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 24, § 11-1125(b) (repealed 1979); 22 Pa.Admin. Code § 351.21 (Rating Card DEBE-333).

. Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 24, § ll-1125(b) (repealed 1979).

. The teachers in the Riverside School District were rated twice a year. The teachers were rated on a scale of 0 to 80 points with 80 being the highest possible rating. The unweighted efficiency rating for the year was determined by adding the totals of both ratings. The weighted efficiency rating for the year was determined by adding a point to each unweighted rating for each year of employment and then adding these two figures.

. In Gabriel v. Trinity Area School District, 22 Pa.Commw. 620, 350 A.2d 203 (1976), the Commonwealth Court found the term “substantial” to mean real, considerable or important. This is not a definition but merely a list of synonyms for the term substantial. In Gabriel the Commonwealth Court found that a difference of 9.5 points out of a possible 80 points is a substantial difference. In Smith v. Richland School District, 36 Pa.Commw. 150, 387 A.2d 974 (1978), the Commonwealth Court found that a difference in unweighted efficiency ratings of 6 points out of a possible 80 points is a substantial difference. However, Gabriel and Richland lend no insight into what a substantial difference is, since the court made wholly unexplained conclusions that differences of 8 and 9.5 points constitute a substantial difference. In this case we are dealing with 8 points out of a possible 160 points because of the procedures set forth in footnote 7, supra.

. Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 24, § 11-1125.1 (Purdon Supp.1982).

. Appellee argues that Bair is distinguishable from the within matter. We disagree. The only difference between Bair and this case is that Bair dealt with unsatisfactory ratings, whereas this case deals with satisfactory ratings. This difference is no distinction as applied to the within facts.