Court Opinion

ID: 9573735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:58:16.958393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:13.162081
License: Public Domain

Judge ARNOLD
dissenting.
The trial court found respondent to be in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.4(a)(6) (1986). Intentional conduct which “[disrupts, disturbs or interferes with the teaching of students at any public or private educational institution” is addressed. G.S. § 14-288.4(a)(6). Based on the record before this Court respondent’s actions “on or about 26 March 1990” come within the statute’s ambit.
The majority fails to see that this proceeding is the culmination of extensive disciplinary efforts by the school administration. During its examination of a teacher the trial court inquired about *456the general discipline options available to the school, specifically asking about in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension, detention hall and spanking.
The trial court found respondent’s conduct was “an actual, material interference with part of the program of instruction” and her “purpose or intent on that occasion was that her conduct would have that effect.” After this finding the trial court made the “unsupported” finding of fact mentioned by the majority which has its basis in the disposition phase. This finding of fact goes not to respondent’s guilt or innocence, but to one of the special conditions of probation. Respondent is not to associate with four students whose names “on many of those occasions” were sent to the office as people involved with respondent in those numerous incidents. The trial court’s findings of fact support the order issued and I would affirm.