Facts of the case

The Bureau of Teacher Certification and Preparation of the Department of Education denied Bethany Dauer’s application for an additional certification in Spanish to her existing Instructional I elementary certificate. She petitioned the court to review this decision. Dauer believed that she should have granted her the certificate based on her academic record and teaching skills or the Department should have extended her emergency certificate until she could retest under new accommodations due to a recent learning disability diagnosis. Her application was denied because she did not pass the Praxis II test in Spanish Content Knowledge, which is required for certification.

She appealed the decision to not add the additional certification to the Secretary of Education’s Certification Appeal Committee and a hearing was held on June 2, 2004. Dauer explained in the hearing that she failed the Praxis and the ACTFL test, but was rescheduled to take the Praxis exam again at the end of June. She recently stated that she had been diagnosed with a learning disability, which would allow her to have special accommodations for the next Praxis exam. The committee recommended to maintain the Bureau’s decision and Dauer was denied the request for the certificate on July 22, 2004. Dauer appealed this decision to the Commonwealth Court because she felt the Department violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it did not allow her to retest the Praxis with accommodations and that the Department did not look at her evidence of outstanding academic and teaching performance. Dauer contended that her constitutional rights were violated based on substantive due process and procedural due process. Finally, Dauer felt that her constitutional right of equal protection was violated because the Department had waived testing requirements for another candidate.

Decision of the court

On May 12, 2005 the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania dismissed Dauer’s petition for review of the Department of Education’s decision. The court concluded that Dauer did not pass the required Praxis exam, so she should not expect a certificate. For this reason, there was no right, privilege, or immunity in jeopardy.

Basis

The court’s decision was based on whether the refusal of the added certificate to Dauer amounted to an “adjudication”, which would establish a protected interest. “Adjudication”, under the Administration Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. 702, is defined as “any final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties, liabilities or obligations of any or all of the parties to the proceeding in which the adjudication is made.” 2 Pa. C.S. 101. The Court used several earlier decisions, as a basis for this decision. In Flinn v. Pittenger, 338 A.2d 735 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975) and Fricchione v. Department of Education, 287 A.2d 442 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1972), the court ruled that the decision of the Secretary of Education is ministerial not adjudicative. The Secretary decides on applications of certificates based on applicants satisfying certain requirements. Therefore, Dauer should not expect a certificate because she did not pass the required tests, which meant that Dauer had no right or privilege in jeopardy.

Prepared by Amy Collige Summer 2005