Audit Report on the Department of Education’s Adjudication of Alleged Teacher Misconduct and Incompetence Cases

Audit Report on the Department of Education’s Adjudication of Alleged Teacher Misconduct and Incompetence Cases

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This audit examined whether the Department of Education (DOE), the largest school system in the United States, effectively tracks the teacher misconduct and incompetence referrals it receives and whether the misconduct and incompetence charges served on tenured teachers are adjudicated within the required timeframes.  The audit’s primary scope was referrals received and charges filed against tenured teachers during School Year 2011-2012 ¹.

On April 15, 2010, DOE and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) entered into an agreement intended to improve the timeliness of the investigation and adjudication of allegations of teacher misconduct and incompetence.  The agreement established new procedures for these cases which, in conjunction with New York State Education Law Article 61, §3020, Discipline of Teachers, and §3020-a, Disciplinary Procedures and Penalties, set a timeframe of 115 days to resolve these cases, starting from the day that misconduct or incompetence charges are filed against a tenured teacher and concluding on the day that the assigned arbitrator renders a decision.

DOE has two units that handle the adjudication of these cases: the Administrative Trials Unit (ATU),  which handles teacher misconduct cases, and the Teacher Performance Unit (TPU), which handles incompetence cases.   ATU and TPU records indicate that at least 187 tenured teachers were charged with misconduct and at least 91 tenured teachers were charged with incompetence during School Year 2011-2012.

Audit Findings and Conclusion

The audit identified weaknesses relating to DOE’s handling of teacher misconduct and incompetence cases.  In particular, the audit determined that ATU failed to track the teacher misconduct referrals it received.  As a result, it was not possible for the auditors or DOE to determine whether ATU served charges for all of the misconduct referrals that it received or whether it prepared written case closure statements for all of those referrals for which it did not serve charges.  In addition, the audit also found that DOE did not adequately track the ATU and TPU cases for which charges had been served to help ensure that these cases were adjudicated in a timely manner.  Finally, the audit found that approximately 36 percent of the misconduct and incompetence cases filed in School Year 2011-2012 were not completed within the required timeframe of 115 days. 

DOE provided documentation showing that it is in the process of developing computer-based case tracking applications for its ATU and TPU cases.  DOE currently maintains information on its ATU and TPU cases in Access databases.  We recommend that until the new case tracking applications are available, DOE use its existing Access databases to track teacher misconduct referrals and to more effectively track its teacher misconduct and incompetence adjudications.

While the 115 day timeframe was not met in 36 percent of the cases, the audit found that most of the misconduct and incompetence charges that were filed against tenured teachers during School Year 2011-2012 were resolved by the end of the following school year.  Specifically, by June 30, 2013, 178 (95 percent) of the 187 misconduct cases and 87 (96 percent) of the 91 incompetence cases had been resolved either through a settlement or an arbitrator’s decision. 

Audit Recommendations

To address these issues, the audit recommends that:

• ATU track its handling of all of the teacher misconduct referrals that it receives to ensure that timely action is taken on each referral.
• For those referrals that do not lead to ATU serving charges, ATU ensure that written case closure statements are prepared. 
• DOE actively monitor the overall timeliness of its adjudication of teacher misconduct and incompetence cases.
• DOE track the amount of time that occurs between key events (such as the time between the pre-hearing conference and the last hearing on a case) so that it is able to readily determine where delays in the adjudication process are occurring.

Agency Response

In their response, DOE officials disagreed with the main findings of the audit and claimed that they were already implementing two of the audit’s recommendations and that they will be implementing the other two when the new case tracking system is complete. 
We note that the development of the new case tracking system began in June 2012 and is not scheduled to be completed until the end of the current school year.  While the system is being developed, DOE has Access databases of its cases that it could use to systematically track those cases.  DOE provided no evidence to auditors that it actively tracks cases in a comprehensive and systematic way so that it can identify those that exceed, or are at risk of exceeding, the timeframe of 115 days, or to identify those steps in the adjudication process at which delays are occurring. Additional comments on DOE’s responses to the audit’s findings and recommendations are presented in the body of the report.