COUNTY OF FRANKLIN / IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
NO. 02 EDC 0155
MARY MARGARET DAVIS,
Petitioner,
vs.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
Respondent. / RECOMMENDED DECISION
This matter was heard on August 30, 2002, at the Lee House in Raleigh, North Carolina before Administrative Law Judge Beecher R. Gray.
Appearances
For the Petitioner:Banzet, Banzet & Thompson, P.L.L.C.
By: Lewis A. Thompson, III
P. O. Box 535
Warrenton, North Carolina 27589
For the Respondent:Laura E. Crumpler
Assistant Attorney General
North Carolina Department of Justice
P. O. Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.Respondent is charged with the responsibility of licensing professional educators in North Carolina. (T. 32)
2.Teachers in North Carolina are paid on a salary schedule based upon experience level, meaning that a teacher receives a salary increase as his/her experience level increases. (T. 33-34)
3.The salary schedule incremental increases are in addition to any legislative determination to award a raise in any given year. (T. 33-35)
4.The Respondent also has a policy of awarding experience credit for certain types of nonteaching experience. (T. 35)
5.Nonteaching work experience originated in the area of vocational teachers, such as auto body repair, to reward those teachers for actual experience in the field which they are then assigned to teach. (T. 35-37)
6.As with the vocational teachers, the Respondent will award nonteaching work experience salary credit for other types of work experience. (T. 36-67) Such prior experience must be directlyrelated to the job for which the individual is licensed. (T. 41-42)
7.The Respondent employs licensure specialists to evaluate license applications and also to evaluate requests for nonteaching work experience for salary schedule purposes. (T. 37-38) Those specialists undergo extensive training prior to assuming full responsibilities. (T. 37-38)
8.Petitioner, a high school English teacher with Franklin County Schools, applied for salary credit based upon prior actual school teaching experience and also based upon prior nonteaching work experience as a church youth minister. (Resp. Ex. 5; 11) Respondent, after reviewing all documents submitted in support of the requests, granted Petitioner 6 years’ salary experience credit for her teaching experience but denied her request to credit 5 years’ experience as a church youth minister toward her assignment as a high school English teacher. (Resp. Ex. 10, 11, 12)
9.Petitioner’s request for salary experience credit for performing duties as a youth minister was not accompanied by employer verifications, job descriptions, or any other supporting documentation to substantiate the request. (T. 60 - 61)
10.Petitioner and the Franklin County personnel Director, Dr. Henry Holt, subsequently met personally with Mr. Brock Murray, Chief of the Licensure Section, Department of Public Instruction. (T. 61) While the three discussed the possibility of experience credit for “her serving in the pulpit or something to that effect,” Petitioner submitted no additional supporting documentation. (T. 61)
11.Mr. Murray agreed to submit Petitioner’s request for further review, outside the Department, to a committee made up of practicing professional educators. (T. 62)
12.Not all experience credit requests are submitted to the committee but it was deemed in this case to be the “next logical step” in view of the persistence of the Petitioner and her local officials in pursuing the matter. (T. 63) Respondent also simply “wanted to be sure that we were being as fair as possible . . . .” (T. 63)
13.Petitioner’s request to receive experience credit for her time spent as a church youth minister was denied at each level of review. When asked to summarize the reason why Respondent denied the request in this instance, Mr. Murray replied:
A.Well, because the intent of the nonteaching experience policy is to award people who are working in the public schools with a - in terms of additional salary dollars because they have advanced their knowledge base based on a particular work experience situation. I cited earlier some examples of where people would have gained additional knowledge in their discipline.
In reviewing this particular case, it wasn’t felt that being an English teacher doing the duties and responsibilities of teaching English in a high school and working in a church setting were what we considered to be directly relevant in related issues, and that was the basic reason for it.
(T. 65-66)
14.Petitioner testified regarding her job duties as a youth minister and described those duties as they related to interactions with children and youth, to getting along with parents and peers, and to sexual, racial, academic and social issues. (T. 21-23). She also “conducted some writing workshops with the kids and had them write a little church newsletter periodically and had them read them sometimes in church . . . .” (T. 24) Petitioner noted a lot of similar issues between her current teaching position and her role as a youth minister, including “behavioral management” and “anger management.” (T. 24) She testified that she found her ministry experience “helpful” in performing her duties as a High School English teacher. (T. 24-25)
- Although Petitioner teaches a course on the OldTestament at the High School level, the vast majority of herduties as a youth minister are not directlyrelated to her assignment as a High School English teacher. While certainly working with children in any setting helps develop skills that hopefully can transfer to the public classroom, such skills do not rise to the level of experience warranting salary credit for the experience.
- The parties stipulated on the record at the hearing that notice of hearing was proper.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.The parties properly are before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
2. Respondent did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying Petitioner nonteaching experience for her experience as a church youth minister.
3.Respondent did not and has not deprived Petitioner of any property to which she is entitled.
4.Respondent has not prejudiced the right of Petitioner, exceeded its authority, acted erroneously, failed to use proper procedure, or failed to act unlawfully.
- Respondent properly found that Petitioner’s church work experience was not directly related to her teaching assignment so as to warrant salary increases.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned makes the following:
RECOMMENDED DECISION
Respondent properly rejected Petitioner’s request for nonteaching work experience and the undersigned recommends that the State Board of Education enter a final decision upholding the Department’s denial of the experience credit.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the agency serve a copy of the final decision on the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 150B-36(b).
NOTICE
The agency making the final decision in this contested case is required to give each party an opportunity to file exceptions to this recommended decision and to present written arguments to those in the agency who will make the final decision. G.S. 150B-36(a).
The agency is required by G.S. 150B-36(b) to serve a copy of the final decision on all parties and to furnish a copy to the parties’ attorney of record and to the Office of Administrative Hearings.
The agency that will make the final decision in this contested case is the North Carolina State Board of Education.
This the 18th day of December, 2003.
______
Beecher R. Gray
Administrative Law Judge