Defendant, Millersville University (hereinafter \u201cMU\u201d), is a public university within the meaning of 24 P.S. \u00a71-101, et seq., with administrative offices at the above-captioned address. At all times material hereto, Defendant was a recipient of federal financial assistance.
teaching internship program. He maintains a business address at One South George Street, P.O. Box 1002, Millersville, PA 17551-0302. Mr. Girvin is being sued in both his individual and official capacities.
Plaintiff attended MU from June, 2002 until May, 2006. After majoring in Biology and English, Plaintiff switched her major to Secondary English Education in MU\u2019s School of Education. (Exhibit \u201cA\u201d hereto.) Plaintiff\u2019s grade point average was between 3.0 and 3.49, exceeding Defendant\u2019s requirement for graduation with an initial teaching certificate in Pennsylvania. (Exhibit \u201cB,\u201d, p. 10.)
As a prerequisite to receiving her Bachelor of Science in Education (\u201cBSE\u201d), Plaintiff successfully completed several \u201cfield experiences.\u201dId. Her first such assignment was at the La Academia Charter School in the spring of 2005. There, Plaintiff achieved the highest marks in all areas, including \u201cprofessional competencies.\u201d (Exhibit \u201cC,\u201d p. 1.)
Next, during the fall semester, 2005, Plaintiff completed a field experience teaching grades 10 and 11 at Lampeter-Strasburg High School. On her final evaluation, Plaintiff achieved grades of \u201coutstanding\u201d and \u201ccompetent\u201d in all areas. (Exhibit \u201cD.\u201d)
Also during the fall of 2005, Plaintiff completed a field experience in teaching and writing at Garden Spot High School. There, her supervising teacher, Neil Weidman, lauded Plaintiff as \u201cexceptionally professional\u201d and predicted she \u201cwill become an excellent teacher.\u201d (Exhibit \u201cE\u201d.)
Mr. Girvin observed Plaintiff in the classroom on March 9, 2006. He noted Plaintiff \u201cprepare an excellent handout\u201d and was \u201cconfident about her content and her approach.\u201d (Exhibit \u201cH\u201d.)
On or about March 17, 2006, Mr. Girvin prepared a \u201cmid-evaluation - English\u201d on Plaintiff. (Exhibit \u201cI\u201d hereto.) Therein, he awarded Plaintiff a \u201cG,\u201d the highest mark, for her adherence to the Pennsylvania Professional Code of Ethics. (Id., p. 1.) Mr. Girvin also noted several areas in which Plaintiff needed \u201csignificant remediation,\u201d including portions of her preparation, teaching performance and approach to student learning. (Id.) Importantly, none of the areas identified related to Plaintiff\u2019s \u201cprofessionalism.\u201dId.
On or about March 20, 2006, Ms. Reinking prepared her own \u201cmid-evaluation - English\u201d on Plaintiff, using the same format. (Exhibit \u201cJ.\u201d) Ms. Reinking gave Plaintiff grades of \u201cG\u201d and \u201cR,\u201d the two highest marks, in professionalism. (Id., p. 1.) She described Plaintiff as \u201ca very organized, punctual student teacher\u201d who \u201chas also shown a commitment to ongoing professional development. . . .\u201d (Id.) Ms. Reinking also noted several areas in which Plaintiff needed \u201csignificant remediation,\u201d including portions of preparation, teaching performance, effect on student learning and English-specific items. Again, none of the areas related to Plaintiff\u2019s \u201cprofessionalism.\u201d(I d. )
Use your Facebook login and see what your friends are reading and sharing.
Now bringing you back...