Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in the case of Perkiomen Valley School District v. Perkiomen Valley Education Association, No. 80-21180.
A. Martin Herring, for appellant.
C. Stephens Vondercrone, Jr., Pearlstine, Salkin, Hardiman and Robinson, for appellee.
Judges Rogers, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
[ 74 Pa. Commw. Page 583]
The Perkiomen Valley Education Association (union) here appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County vacating in part an award of an arbitrator made in response to the union's grievance challenging the legality and propriety under the applicable collective bargaining agreement of the manner in which the Perkiomen Valley School District had in the past and proposed in the future to evaluate its professional teaching personnel. The issue presented is that of whether the court of common pleas correctly determined that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by ordering the district to expunge from each teacher's personnel record the result of an evaluation previously conducted by building principals and administrators and to give each of its teachers instead the maximum permitted rating of 20 points in each category of competence evaluated. We affirm.
The facts are in material part undisputed. On October 17, 1979, the district's superintendent of schools notified the union's president that the district proposed to convert its previous scheme of professional employee evaluations, which was predicated on a descriptive scale of assessed performance ranging from "outstanding" to "unsatisfactory," to a numerical evaluatory system based on a scale from zero to twenty in each of four categories which change was required,
[ 74 Pa. Commw. Page 584]
in the district's view, by the Commonwealth Department of Education, including the Department's rating form promulgated as a regulation and denominated the DEBE-333.*fn1 Specifically, as appears in a memorandum to all professional staff from Superintendent Wescott dated February 25, 1980, the district proposed the following formula for converting the old system into the new to be effective beginning with the spring term 1980 evaluations:
(1) A rating of "outstanding" would become a rating of 20.
(2) A rating of "meets expectations" would be assigned a number rating in the range of 14-18.
(3) A rating of "unsatisfactory" would become a rating of 10.
Meetings with professional staff on the matter of converting to the new system were conducted by the district's administrators in each of the district's schools between October, 1979 and February, 1980 when the final recommendation, outlined above, was announced. The union then filed a ...