W. B. Jackson, III v. PA Department of Education (Majority Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA William B. Jackson, III, : : Petitioner : : v. : : Pennsylvania Department of Education, : : Respondent : BEFORE: No. 591 C.D. 2007 Submitted: November 30, 2007 HONORABLE DORIS A. SMITH-RIBNER, Judge HONORABLE RENÃ E COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: January 24, 2008 William B. Jackson, III (Jackson), pro se, petitions for review of an order of the Secretary of Education (Secretary), granting Pennsylvania Department of Education, Bureau of Teaching and Learning Support, Division of Professional Development s (Division) Motion to Dismiss Jackson s Request for Appeal of Notice of Inactive Certification (Motion to Dismiss), and rendering Jackson s teaching certificate inactive as of March 1, 2007. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania issued Jackson a Professional Certificate to teach health and physical education (Certificate) in November, 1992. By letter dated June 30, 2006, the Division notified Jackson that his Certificate would be rendered inactive due to his failure to meet ongoing professional education requirements of Section 1205.2 of the Public School Code of 1949, Act of March 10, 1949, added by Section 3 of the Act of November 23, 1999, P.L. 529, as amended, 24 P.S. § 12-1205.2, popularly referred to as Act 48. Pursuant to Act 48, a professional educator must meet one of the following continuing professional education requirements every five years in order to maintain active certification: (1) six (6) credits of collegiate study; or, (2) six (6) credits of continuing professional education courses; or, (3) one hundred eighty (180) hours of continuing professional education programs, activities or learning experiences; or, (4) any combination of collegiate studies, continuing professional education courses, or other programs, activities or learning experiences equivalent to one hundred eighty (180) hours.1 Section 1205.2(a)1-4 of Act 48, 24 P.S. § 12-1205.2(a)1-4. The letter also informed Jackson that an educator placed on inactive status may not be employed in a public school district, except as a substitute teacher or administrator, for no more than 90 days during a school year. Furthermore, the letter provided that Jackson s status could automatically be changed to active as soon as he has completed the credits or hours necessary for him to reach the Act 48 requirement. Jackson filed a timely Request for Appeal of the Notice of Inactive Certification (Request for Appeal), to which the Division filed an Answer. The Division then filed a Motion to Dismiss, requesting that the Secretary dismiss 1 For the purposes of calculating hours and credits of continuing professional education, Section 1205.2(b) of Act 48 provides that one (1) credit of collegiate study or continuing professional education courses is equivalent to thirty (30) hours of continuing education programs, activities or learning experiences. 24 P.S. § 12-1205.2(b). 2 Jackson s Request for Appeal and inactivate Jackson s Certificate. The Division alleged that it was undisputed that Jackson failed to meet the continuing professional development requirements of Act 48 and that Jackson s Request for Appeal was legally insufficient as a matter of law to justify further proceedings in the appeal. In support of the Motion to Dismiss, the Division submitted a copy of Jackson s Professional Education Record (Record) indicating that Jackson failed to comply with the Act 48 requirements. Specifically, the Record indicates that Jackson completed zero out of one hundred eighty (180) hours of continuing education that are required pursuant to Act 48. The Secretary issued an order and opinion granting the Motion to Dismiss and inactivating Jackson s Certificate. The Secretary noted that Jackson failed to provide evidence or information that refuted the Department of Education s Record, which indicated that Jackson was not in compliance with Act 48. Furthermore, the Secretary determined that Jackson s assertions in his Request for Appeal did not contradict his Record. Additionally, the Secretary determined that Jackson did not articulate any legally cognizable grounds to support the Request for Appeal because [f]or the most part, [Jackson] s Request for Appeal contains explanations or excuses as to why [Jackson] failed to comply with Act 48. These reasons are not recognized under Act 48 nor do they provide a basis for overturning the Division s determination. (Secretary of Education Mem. at 3, Record item 1.) Furthermore, the Secretary found that, because there was no factual dispute that Jackson failed to fully comply with the Act 48 requirements, a hearing was not required under Section 504 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 504. Accordingly, the Secretary 3 dismissed Jackson s Request for Appeal as a matter of law and rendered Jackson s Certificate inactive. Jackson now petitions this Court for review.2 On appeal, Jackson contends that the Secretary erred by dismissing his Request for Appeal and inactivating his Certificate. Essentially, Jackson argues that, although he has not fully complied with the Act 48 requirements for continuing education, those requirements should not apply to him as a substitute teacher.3 2 This Court s review in an appeal from a state agency's adjudication is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether there is substantial evidence to support the necessary findings of fact. William Penn School District v. Department of Education, Division of Food and Nutrition, 902 A.2d 583, 586 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). 3 The issue on appeal comes from reading Jackson s pro se brief as a whole. Jackson raised three issues in the Statement of Questions in his brief, but did not offer a legal argument or legal principles to support the issues raised. The Statement of Questions raised by Jackson are as follows: The question(s) of the matter are whether the Department of Education, the Bureau of Teaching and Learning Support, Division of Professional Development (henceforth known as PDE) was able to provide the 501 School District clear, concise and not subject to interpretation, instruction and direction on providing the prescribed number of credits for meeting the requirements of Act 48 of 1999 at the enactment, as it pertains to certified substitute educators employed as day-to-day or long-term positions, within the School District and hired without the benefits and rights as established in a collectively bargained and negotiated contract. Whether the PDE had established a program or instructed the School Districts at the beginning of [the] enactment of Act 48 of 1999, for non-contracted educators to obtain the prescribed number of hours to maintain certification without causing undue financial hardships or having such educators decide where to take a position as a substitute educator for compensation or attend in-service programs without the benefit of compensation and whether the PDE has provided the appropriate number of free in-service course work that will allow the Petitioner to take course work within the area of certification (Physical Education). (Continued ¦) 4 Section 504 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 504, provides that [n]o adjudication of a Commonwealth agency shall be valid as to any party unless he shall have been afforded reasonable notice of a hearing and an opportunity to be heard. . . . This Court has held that, when there are no factual issues in dispute, an evidentiary hearing is not required under 2 Pa. C.S. § 504. Independent Blue Cross v. Pennsylvania Insurance Department, 802 A.2d 715, 720 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). Where there are no disputed facts, the motion proceedings, including briefs and arguments by both parties, provide ample opportunity for the parties to be heard and the Administrative Agency Law requires no more. Id. (quoting United Healthcare Benefits Trust v. Insurance Commissioner, 620 A.2d 81, 83 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993)). Upon review of the record and relevant case law, we conclude that the Secretary did not err in granting the Division s Motion to Dismiss and inactivating Jackson s Certificate. First, we note that Jackson concedes in his brief to this Court that he has not fully complied with the continuing education requirements pursuant to Act 48 (Jackson Br. at 12), the satisfactory completion of which is required to maintain active certification. 24 P.S. § 12-1205.2(a). Second, Jackson has not formally requested that the Department of Education (Department) grant him an Whether the PDE, by establishing the program for educators to obtain the requirement of Act 48 of 1999 has created a situation whereas school districts have had to obtain the services of any adult holding a valid college or university diploma, regardless of the academic area, and will allow them to serve as a substitute educator for a period up to 180 academic school days, whereas any certified educator with an inactive certificate may only serve as a day-to-day or long-term substitute educator for a period of time to not exceed a total of 90 days of a 180 day school year. (Jackson s Br. at 4.) 5 extension of time to fulfill the requirements of Act 48 because of extenuating circumstances pursuant to Section 1205.2(j) of Act 48. 24 P.S. § 12-1205.2(j). What Jackson seems to be arguing here is that the Department should be estopped from applying the continuing education requirements of Act 48 to him because he is a substitute teacher,4 he was given erroneous information by his last employer, and he was not given adequate guidance by Department employees. However, as this Court noted in Borkey v. Township of Centre, 847 A.2d 807, 812 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004), the doctrine of equitable estoppel cannot be invoked against the Commonwealth where to do so would violate positive law. See also Finnegan v. Public School Employe s Retirement Board, 560 A.2d 848, 851 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989). Act 48 clearly requires all professional educators to successfully complete 180 hours of continuing education every five years in order to have an active certification. 24 P.S. § 12-1205.2. Were the Secretary to excuse Jackson from this requirement for the reasons he proffers, it would be tantamount to allowing a Commonwealth agency to amend or set aside a mandate of a statute governing its actions. Accordingly, Jackson s argument for equitable estoppel is without merit.5 4 We note that Jackson has not clearly articulated a state constitutional claim or argument in favor of his position, nor has he cited to relevant legal authority in his brief. This Court will not develop Jackson s argument for him and, therefore, we find any constitutional claims waived. 5 Even if we found that excusing Jackson from Act 48 compliance did not violate the law, Jackson still could not prevail on an equitable estoppel theory because he cannot successfully show that the Department: (1) intentionally or negligently misrepresented material facts, (2) knew or had reason to know that Jackson would rely on that misrepresentation, and (3) induced Jackson to act to his detriment. Borkey, 847 A.2d at 811. Here, there is nothing in the record to substantiate any showing of a specific misrepresentation of material fact on which Jackson relied to his detriment. Rather, Jackson has merely alleged that he called the Department numerous times and that one particular Department employee told him that Act 48 has been a learning process. (Letter Appeal to the Department at 2 (December 19, 2006) Record Item 3.) This is not a sufficient allegation of a (Continued ¦) 6 Because there are no issues of material fact, Jackson is not entitled to a hearing pursuant to 2 Pa. C.S. § 504. Accordingly, the order of the Secretary granting the Division s Motion to Dismiss and inactivating Jackson s Certificate is affirmed. ______________________________ RENÃ E COHN JUBELIRER, Judge material fact to find in favor of Jackson and equitably estop the Department from applying the requirements of Act 48 to Jackson. 7 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA William B. Jackson, III, : : Petitioner : : v. : : Pennsylvania Department of Education, : : Respondent : No. 591 C.D. 2007 ORDER NOW, January 24, 2008, the order of the Secretary of Education in the abovecaptioned matter is hereby AFFIRMED. ______________________________ RENÃ E COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
