Court Opinion

ID: 9713690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:20:13.580015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:19.999805
License: Public Domain

KIRSCH, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The teachers are members of a bargaining unit that specifically negotiated the forms, procedures, deadlines and process for a system of teacher performance evaluation. By the terms of the resulting agreement, an evaluator who concluded that a teacher did not meet performance standards was required to “identify the specific performance behaviors which he or she observed which do not meet the standards.” Record at 18 (emphasis added).
Contrary to the requirement to identify specific behaviors, the evaluations here at issue set forth only the evaluator’s generalized conclusions, leaving the teachers to speculate as to what behavior led to the conclusions and as to what they could do to correct the situation. The arbitrator found that the omissions by the evaluator were “egregious” and that the evaluator’s action plans “were almost a joke _[which] ... provided no help at all to the teachers.” Record at 28. These findings led the arbitrator to express wonderment at whether the evaluator cared to help teachers generally or “simply did not wish to help these two teachers in particular.” Record at 28.
The arbitrator’s findings, conclusions, and wonderment notwithstanding, the majority, while acknowledging that the evaluations were “arguably vague,” opinion at 245, and “not a model to be followed in the future,” id. at 246, finds the evaluations sufficient as a matter of law. To the contrary, I believe that as a matter of law they are insufficient. Alternatively, the question of whether a particular evaluation is sufficiently specific is a question of fact, the resolution of which should be left to the trier of fact. In either event, I would reverse the decision of the trial court and reinstate the arbitrator’s award.