INDRIA BULLOCH v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (2002)

OPINION

This claim is before the court for a final determination of the claimant's breach of contract claim (Count I of her complaint) against the respondent's Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities (Board of Governors), Following trial to our commissioner, Michael Kane. This claims is before us on the pleadings, the trial record and the commissioners findings and recommendations. We previously dismissed claimant's tort claim (Count II), for intentional infliction of emotional distress, for failure to give the required/22-1 notice: see, order of June 25, 1999.

Nature of the Claim

This is a former university student's breach of contract claim against her university for breach of their educational contract. Claimant was an education student at Chicago State University (CSU), then under the jurisdiction of the Board of Governors, at which she pursued as a bachelor's degree and teacher certification. She graduated in May, 1990. CSU conferred on Ms. Bulloch a Bachelor of Science in Business Education degree, but declined to grant her teacher certification, which she had also sought. That denial is the focus of this claim.

The following was entered in her academic transcript by CSU officials:

Ms. Indira Bulloch has not succeeded in completing student Teaching and is ineligible for Teacher Certification She is Being granted a B.S. in Education degree without Teacher Certification. Degree Requirements completed. Date: May 11, 1990. Major: Bus Ed.

Claimant alleges that she did successfully complete the student teaching course, but that her transcript was wrongfully marked to show an incomplete or withdrawn on the student teaching requirement. She alleges that CSU had sent her a drop or withdraw form to sign by request of Coll. Of Ed. 5/9/90, but that she never withdrew from the course nor approved the request. (CSU admits that its administration entered a W -- apparently for withdrawn -- on her transcript although she did not formally withdraw from her student teaching, but CSU asserts that she was given a grade of W instead of an earned F. Respondent's Answer, f 15.)

Claimant alleges two breaches of her educational contract with CSU: (1) that CSU wrongfully refused to grant her teacher certification and (2) CSU wrongfully marked her transcript with an erroneous incomplete or withdrawn for student teaching. Ms Bulloch claims damages of $100,000 lost income flowing from the delay in her qualifying for and obtaining a teaching position.

Analysis

Although the allegedly inaccurate entry on her academic record is not a trivial matter, it is clearly a secondary issue. The dispositive issue is whether the claimant did or did not successfully compete the student teaching requirements as duly established by CSU, which are (undisputedly) part of the academic contract governing the claimant's undergraduate program at CSU.

The transcript entry issue is secondary because: (i) the claimed damages are not alleged to result from an erroneous entry on claimant's transcript (as distinguished from the lack of a teaching certificate); and (ii) the ultimate substantive falsity or accuracy of the incomplete or withdrawn entry on her transcript turns on whether or not she in fact successfully completed the student teaching course, i.e., passed it as well as finished the required time and work requirements.

The successful completion of the student teaching requirements being the dispositive issue, this court is thrust in the uncomfortable but unavoidable position of reviewing the academic decisions of the faculty and administrators of a State university. Insofar as a particular academic decision entails objectively ascertainable facts, its review is little different from any other factual determination that a court may be called upon to make. But insofar as an academic decision entails qualitative or subjective academic judgments, this court like most courts is not fully competent to make such judgments and thus in reviewing them accords significant deference to the good faith judgments of the academics who are qualified and experienced in the academic field involved. In the absence of evidence of bias, conflict of interest or arbitrary and capricious conduct on the part of a teaching institution or its academics, courts have little business substituting their judgment for that of the educational and academic professionals. Tanner v. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 43 Ill.Ct.Cl.12 (1989).

That our evaluation of an academic decision arises as a legal determination of whether or not a breach of contract was committed does not alter this deference. Quite the contrary. The educational contract between the student and the educational institution inherently and implicitly adopts the academic standards of the institution -- including subjective or judgmental standards.

That, indeed, is a critical element of the student's contractual bargain with the institution: he or she agrees to be judged academically according to the prevailing (or duly established) standards of academic performance. Among other things, the application and enforcement of those academic standards are one of the underlying premises of higher education programs that maintains the value of the degree or certificate that the student agrees to earn. Thus the court enforces the parties educational bargain by upholding the academic standards set by the academic professionals.

These settled principles are especially pertinent in this case, where the academic decision under review is the CSU faculty's determination that Ms. Bullock did not successfully complete its student teaching requirement. The trial record is abundantly clear that her teachers and supervisors determined that the claimant was not performing adequately in her student teaching and that she was failing the course requirements. The record is also clear and undisputed that the CSU administrators, in order not to give her a failing grade on her academic record, unilaterally recorded her as having not succeeded in completing or as having withdrawn from the student teaching course as the lesser of regrettable options.

Without examining the propriety of CSU's dissembling on its academic transcripts to protect its failing students (and thereby sometimes misleading readers of those transcripts), the issue we must decide is whether the claimant has proven that she did in fact successfully complete the student teaching course and that the faculty decision that she did not or would not was wrong. If she had in fact earned the certificate, the CSU was at fault both in denying her the certificate and in making the incomplete entry in her record: but if she in fact had not duly earned the teaching certificate then CSU properly declined to award one to her and, whatever technical inaccuracy may lie in her academic transcript, she cannot complaint of that error that caused her no harm.

The Student Teaching Issue --The Trial Record

To obtain an education degree with a teaching certificate from CSU at the time of Ms. Bullock's attendance, a student was required to successfully complete the Student Teaching and Methods course, which places the student in an actual classroom setting with students and a supervising teacher. The class exposes the candidate to the different methodologies of teaching, how to keep lesson plans, the differences between oral presentations, lectures, and video and other pedagogical techniques. This is the very last course a candidate for an education degree takes at CSU.

CSU utilized Morgan Park High School as one of its student teaching venues. During the spring semester of 1990, the Claimant was assigned to Morgan Park as a student teacher under the supervision of two teachers, Ida Nichols-Monson and David Larson. Claimant was to teach keyboarding and general business to the Morgan Park students.

Ms. Monson, who had coordinated student teaching at the school for approximately 11 years, was called as witness by respondent. Ms Monson testified that during the spring semester, she had the opportunity to observe the Claimant in the classroom setting on a regular basis. She worked with the Claimant in trying to avoid a failing grade, but Ms. Bullock's problems were readily apparent to her. Ms. Monson further testified that the claimant would not follow lesson plans; that she could not control a classroom; and that these flaws led to other organizational problems.

Ms. Monson conveyed her concerns to the claimant and to her parents. But Ms. Bullock's performance did not improve, and her teaching shortcomings were in due course reported to the academic advisor at CSU. Eventually, her supervising teachers recommended that Ms. Bullock be given a failing grade for the class.

Nevertheless, CSU decided not to place a failing grade in Claimant's transcript, but instead granted her an administrative withdrawal, although she had not requested one. Claimant was then offered the options or retaking the class while assigned to a school other than Morgan Park or of graduating with her class without the teaching certification.

There are no competent facts or opinions in evidence that contradict this view of Ms. Bullock's performance in the student teaching course. Indeed, claimant relies primarily on her own opinion of her performance, which is neither fully competent nor persuasive, even standing alone without regard to the critical opinions of her academic and professional superiors in whose eyes she had then failed to master basic teaching skills.

That she was found to have successfully completed the academic requirements for a B.S. degree and was allowed to graduate with her class -- and that the CSU faculty or administration (it is not entirely clear who made the ultimate decision) did not record and F on her permanent academic record for student teaching -- does not alter the conclusion as to her performance in the Student Teaching and Methods class.

Conclusion

We find that the claimant's own failing grade, resulting from her inadequate performance in the Student Teaching and Methods course in 1990, kept her from receiving a teaching certificate from CSU at that time, and not any wrongful act of the State. Ms. Bullock did not earn a teaching certificate in accordance with the applicable requirements at that time, and hence was not then entitled to the certification as a matter of contract law and as a matter of academic achievement. There was no breach of contract by CSU and thus liability must be denied.

This conclusion also disposes of the claimant's attack on CSU for its generous and gentle, but thankless, decision to mismark claimant's academic record with a benign W in lieu of the scarlet-like F -- quite obviously done to avoid stigmatizing her in her chosen profession despite her inadequate performance in that semester, and in the process treading close to academic dishonesty. The record in this case shows that the claimant is technically correct in her accusation of intentional CSU error in her academic transcript, but outrageously off base in claiming to have been wronged by that action, which was plainly done for her benefit, not CSU's.

For the foregoing reasons, this claim is denied and forever barred.

EPSTEIN, J.