BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of the )
Teaching License of ) FINAL ORDER
)
SEAN MICHAEL CALLAHAN ) Case No. 901190
On December 10, 2009, Senior Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) A. Bernadette House
issued a Proposed Order in this case.
On May 14, 2010, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission issued an Amended
Proposed Order that modified the ALJ’s Proposed Order. The Amended Proposed Order
adopted the ALJ’s Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law regarding OAR 584-020-0010(5), but
otherwise rejected it. The Commission also rejected Conclusion of Law 2.
. ORDER
1 The Commission adopts the Amended Proposed Order attached hereto and incorporated
3 by reference in its entirety and revokes Sean M. Callahan’s right t0 apply for a license in Oregon
i for a period of one year effective May l4, 2010.
Dated this 025 day of April 2011.
TEACHER STANDARD AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
13ij
Victoria Chamb n, xecutive Director
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
NOTICE: You are entitled to judicial review of this order. Judicial review may be obtained
by filing a petition for review within 60 days of the service of this order. Judicial review is
pursuant to the provision of ORS 183.482 to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
PAGE l A FINAL ORDER — SEAN MICHAEL CALLAHAN

I CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
2
3
4 I hereby certify that I served the foregoing order by mailing a true copy thereof certified by me
5 as such by U.S. First Class Mail to the Attorney of record for Sean Michael Callahan:
6
7 Kevin Carolan
8 Attorney at Law
9 PO Box 2221

10 Bend OR 97709

11

12 gt

l3 Dated this é 7 day of April 2011.

14

15 . .

16 . / - .

17 By: _- nu L AY/lac/IL

18 Mel I dy Hang’ xecutive Assistant

19

i
PAGE l — CERTIFICATE OF MAILING — SEAN MICHAEL CALLAHAN

BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF OREGON
for the
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION .
IN THE MATTER OF: ) AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER
)
SEAN MICHAEL CALLAHAN ) OAH Case N0.: 901190
)

This matter came before the Commission during its meeting of May l4, 2010, in order to
consider the Proposed Order issued by Administrative Law Judge A. Bernadette House on
December 10, 2009. Licensee was given an opportunity to file exceptions. Licensee submitted
four emails to the Commission office regarding this case after issuance of the Proposed Order.
The four emails, dated March 24, April 2, April 19, and April 25, 2010, are considered
exceptions to the Proposed Order. After considering the case, the Commission adopts the ALJ’s
Findings of Fact. The Commission adopts Conclusion of Law 1 regarding OAR 584-020-
0010(5), but otherwise rejects it. The Commission also rejects Conclusion of Law 2. The
revisions to the Proposed Order are more fully explained below:

HISTORY OF THE CASE

On June 19, 2009, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (Commission)
issued a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to Sean Michael Callahan (Licensee). On June 25,
2009, Licensee, through counsel, requested a hearing. 1

On July 7, 2009, the Commission referred the hearing request to the Office of
Administrative Hearings (OAH). Senior Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) A. Bernadette House
was assigned to preside at hearing. A preheating conference was convened on October 1, 2009.
Raul Ramirez, Assistant Attorney General (AAG), appeared on behalf of the Commission and
Kevin Carolan, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Licensee, and relevant dates were set.

A hearing was held on November 12, 2009, in Salem, Oregon. Licensee appeared with
counsel and testified. The Commission was represented by AAG Ramirez. Francesca Bero,
M.A., Ph.D., professor at Sierra Nevada College, testified by telephone on behalf of Licensee.
Testifying by telephone on behalf of the Commission were Judy Scales, former director of
human resources at High Desert Education Service District (HDESD), and Jay Mathisen,
principal of La Pine High School. The record closed at the conclusion of the hearing on
November 12, 2009.

In the Matter ofSean M Callahan, OAH Case No. 901190
Page 1 of 13

‘ ISSUES

i

1 1. Whether Licensee’s comments written on a student’s paper on or about May 8, 2008,
constituted a gross neglect of duty in violation of ORS 342.175(l)(b); OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n)
as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0015(1) (stimulating the spirit of inquiry, the acquisition of
knowledge and understanding, and the thoughtful formulation of goals), OAR 584-020-
0015(2)(c) (subject matter appropriate to the needs of the student) and (e) (skill in the selection
and use of teaching techniques), and OAR 584-020-0010(5) (use of professional judgment).

2. If so, whether the Commission’s proposed revocation of License’s Restricted
Substitute Teaching License is appropriate. ORS 342.177

EVIDENTIARY RULING

Exhibits AI, A2, and A4, offered by the Commission, were admitted into the record
without objection. Exhibits A3 and A5 were admitted following withdrawal of Licensee’s
objections. The Commission objected to Exhibits Rl through R8, offered by Licensee, on the
basis of relevancy. The Commission’s objections to Exhibits R1 through R3 were overruled and
the exhibits were admitted. The Commission’s objections to Licensee’s Exhibits R4 through R8
were sustained.

FINDINGS OF FACT

l. On March 17, 2008, the Commission issued Licensee a Restricted Substitute Teaching
License. (EX. Al at l.)

2. ‘The license was restricted to 60 days total use during each school year Within the co-
applicant district that applied jointly with Licensee for the licensee on the following bases:

Licensee had never held an unrestricted license for full-time teaching in any state 0r

completed an approved teacher education program in any state.

(Ex. Al .) HDESD was the co-applicant district for Licensee for the March 17, 2008 license.
Licensee is restricted to teaching under the restricted license to schools served by HDESD.
(Test. of Licensee; Ex. A2.)

3. Licensee had signed the list to substitute teach for La Pine High School, which is
included within the education district served by HDESD, in December 2007. (Ex. A3 at 1,) On
May 8, 2008, Licensee was assigned to substitute for an English teacher at the high school. ’
During 1st period, which was a class preparation period, Licensee was asked to review and edit
student papers for the teacher who was absent. The papers were to be reviewed by the regular
teacher before being given back to the students. (Test, of Licensee.)

4. Licensee reviewed the papers as requested, made comments, and left the edited papers _
for the teacher to review. (Test. of Licensee.) Prior to returning the edited papers to the
students, the regular teacher read them and became concerned at the comments Licensee had
In the Matter ofSean M. Callahan, OAH Case No. 901190
Page 2 of l3

made on one student’s paper. The teacher brought the paper to the principal, Jay Mathisen, for
review. (Test. of Mathisen.)

5. Licensee wrote comments on the student’s paper, entitled “Pet Detective,” that
included grammar and spelling corrections and other general comments. (Test. of Licensee; Ex.
A4.) In addition, Licensee wrote the following comments at the end of the paper:

I don’t know whether to praise you for being inside a vicious animal’s

head so well or to recommend a Psychiatrist. The “evil” cat definitely needed

more character development, it looks to me like he was put to death for not

knowing how to be a Christian to a particular church.

You are one scary little dude, I guess I better join your church if I want to
live.
Get help if that dog is a reflection of you. I don’t think your priest or

minister would approve. As public school educators, we must respect the 1st

Amendment which states that “Congress may pass no law respecting the

establishment of a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” However, in

1986 there was a Supreme Court Justice whom declared that breeches of the 1st

Amendment will continue to occur on a regular basis and it shouldn’t get to courts

every time or else religion and government may become suspicious of one

another.

I do not like the hostile tone of this paper. If you or your family have
something to say over this matter then call me at [number omitted] so that I can
talk with you personally. [signature of Licensee]

I do hope to hear from you, I’m wondering if I need to meet your priest as
well.

(Test. of Licensee; Ex. A4 at 4,5.)

6. Following review by Principal Mathisen, La Pine High School determined that
Licensee would be excluded from substituting at the high school in the future. Principal
Mathisen then notified HDESD of the incident and requested that Licensee not be assigned to La
Pine High School in the future. (Test. of Mathisen.) As a school administrator, Principal
Mathisen was permitted to exclude substitute teachers at any time and for any reason that was
not discriminatory in nature. (Ex. A3.) At that time, Mathisen had been principal of La Pine
High School for approximately three years. (Test. of Mathisen.)

7. Principal Mathisen considered the comments unprofessional and inappropriate based
on the following: Licensee’s comments regarding the 1st Amendment did not have any relation
to the content of the student’s paper; the paper did not appear to address religion, the
constitution, or a priest at all; the comments regarding student being a “scary little dude,” were
unacceptable, especially where there was no established professional relationship between the
student and Licensee which could possibly lessen the impact of the statement, and where the
feedback was in a written form; and the comment regarding the need for a psychiatrist was made
without Licensee having any knowledge of a possible personal situation for that student where
such a comment could have a potential for more serious repercussions. (Test. of Mathisen.)

In the Matter ofSean M Callahan, OAH Case No. 901190
Page 3 of l3

8. La Pine High School holds substitute teachers to the same standard of professional
conduct as regular teachers. Licensee’s conduct in writing the comments in question did not
meet the standard for professional conduct expected of licensed teachers for La Pine High
SchooL

9. Principal Mathisen requested Becca Scott, the systems operator at HDESD, by email
to exclude Licensee from assignment to La Pine High School. (Ex. A5.) Scott forwarded the
email to Judy Scales, the human resources director of HDESD at that time. It was the practice of
HDESD to inactivate a substitute teacher if it received notification that a substitute had been
excluded by a school administrator, in order to investigate the matter. (Test. of Scales, Ex. A3.)

10. When Scales received the forwarded email regarding Licensee, Scales placed
Licensee 0n inactive status. Scales then contacted Mathisen and requested a copy of the paper
which included the comments. Scales reviewed the comments with the attorney for HDESD. As
an employee of HDESD, Licensee was an at-will employee. Afier conferring with legal counsel,
Scales decided that Licensee was no longer eligible to work as a substitute teacher for HDESD.
(Test. of Scales; Ex. A3.)

11. The incident was Licensee’s first exclusion from any school within the District
served by HDESD, but the incident was considered severe enough to warrant exclusion from all
schools served by HDESD. Scales determined that the comments demonstrated a lack of
professional judgment and were highly inappropriate, due in part to the religious and demeaning
tone of the comments. Scales’s opinion was based in part on her prior experience working as a
teacher before she assumed her position at HDESD. (Test. of Scales; Ex. A3.)

12. At the time Scales informed Licensee of HDESD’s decision, she added that HDESD
did not think Licensee was ready to work as a teacher. When Licensee informed her that he was
working on his master’s degree, Scales told him that when he completed his coursework, he
could reapply. (Test. of Licensee)

13. Judy Scales is currently semi-retired and is no longer the director of human resources
for HDESD. Scales opined that Licensee, who had not completed his studies to become a
licensed teacher at the time of the incident, could be considered for employment at HDESD.
Scales opined that consideration for employment would depend on whether Licensee had taken
steps to address the stress that he testified to having contributed to his conduct, whether he had
completed his course of studies, whether he had additional incidents, and whether he had become
a certified teacher in Oregon. (Test. of Scales.)

l4. By May 2008, Licensee had completed most but not all of the coursework necessary
for his master’s degree in education. Licensee had taken two of four tests required for licensure
as a teacher in California and Nevada but Oregon had additional requirements that Licensee had
not yet met. (Test. of Licensee.)

In the Matter of Sean M. Callahan, OAH Case No. 901 190
Page 4 of l3

15. Licensee had substituted within the HDESD for two to three months prior to the
, incident at La Pine High School. Licensee had quit smoking on his own as of February 17, 2008,
l without the use of smoking-cessation aides. Afier quitting smoking, Licensee experienced
symptoms of nicotine withdrawal, including nervousness and edginess, which made it difficult
for him to work in a classroom situation. In addition, Licensee was studying for exams and was
not getting sufficient sleep. He was driving to different areas, in some instances approximately
30-minutes each way, for substitute teaching assignments. (Test. of Licensee.)

l6. Licensee believes the lack of sleep, long commutes to and from different schools, the
stress of studying, and withdrawal from nicotine combined to affect his judgment at the time he
made the May 8, 2008 comments on the student’s paper. (Test. of Licensee.)

17. Licensee is embarrassed at the content of the comments he wrote on the student’s
paper. He attributes the content of the comments in part to a legal course he was taking at the
time. Licensee also felt that, at the time he wrote the cements, there was pressure from the
community for him to identify himself with a church, including threats from students to report
him to the principal. (T est. of Licensee.)

18. When he wrote the comments, Licensee was concerned about the state of the
student’s mental health. Licensee believed that the student, although writing about animals, was
demonstrating his feelings about people. Licensee interpreted passages of the student’s paper t0
refer to religious matters and Licensee thought that the student showed hostility and violence
towards someone who was not of the same religion. If presently faced with a similar situation,
Licensee would not act on a single incident but would observe a student for additional signs that
the student needed help. He would also report his concerns to the school administration, rattler
than address any concerns through direct feedback to a student. (Test. of Licensee.)

l9. Licensee completed his master’s degree coursework at Sierra Nevada College (the
college). (Test. of Licensee.) Francesca Bero is a full professor of 12-years at the college. She
holds a doctorate degree in education, a master’s degree in special education and philosophy.
Dr. Bero is an accredited teacher in regular and special education in Nevada and in California.
(Test. of Bero.)

20. Dr. Bero taught Licensee while he attended the college. During his coursework,
Licensee completed an assignment student-teaching in a very tough middle school and
performed well. Licenseewas always very pleasant and there were no complaints regarding his
conduct while he was at the college. (Test. 0f Bero.) Licensee is now qualified to teach in
Nevada. (Test. of Bero and Licensee.)

In the Matter ofSean M Callahan, OAH Case No. 901190
Page 5 of l3

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Licensee’s conduct, his written comments on a student’s paper, which occurred on or
about May 8, 2008, constituted a gross neglect of duty in violation of ORS 342.175(l)(b) and
OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(5), OAR 584-020-0015(1), and
OAR 584-020-0015(2)(c) and (e).l
The proper sanction for Licensee’s conduct is revocation of his right to apply for a
license.2
OPINION
The ALJ’s reasoning appears below in italics.
The Commission proposes to revoke the Restricted Substitute Teaching License, issued
March 17, 2008, to Licensee. The Commission alleged that comments written by Licensee, on a
student paper on May 8, 2008, individually or collectively constituted gross neglect of duty in
violation ofORS 342.175(I)(b) and OAR 584-020-0040((4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-
0015(1), OAR 584-020-0015(2)(c), OAR 584-020-0015(2)(e) and OAR 584-020-0010(5).
Burden and Standard of Proof
The burden of presenting evidence to support a fact or position rests with the proponent of
that fact or position. ORS 183.4500); Harris v. SAIF, 292 Or 683 (I982). There was no dispute
that the conduct, writing the comments in question, occurred. At issue is whether the Commission ’s
met its burden to prove that Licensee ‘s conduct constituted a gross neglect of duty because it was a
serious and material inattention to or breach of professional responsibilities in violation of ORS
342.] 75(1)(b). Cook v. Employment Div., 47 Or 683 (I982). In the absence of contrary
legislation, the standard of proof in administrative hearings is preponderance of the evidence.
“Preponderance of evidence " means that the fact finder is convinced that the facts asserted are
more likely true than false. Riley Hill General Contractor v. Tandy Corp, 303 Or 390 (1987).
Commission ’s Authority to Act
The Commission is authorized to regulate licensure and registration of teachers in
Oregon. ORS 342.121 (I) provides:
The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission shall issue licenses to
teachers and administrators who possess the minimum competencies,
knowledge and skills to teach and administer in the public schools 0f the
state.
l The Commission has modified Conclusion of Law 1 to conclude that Licensee violated OAR 584-020~
0015(1) and OAR 584-020-0015(2)(c) and (e). The modification to this Conclusion of Law is explained
in the Commission’s reasoning below.
2 The Commission modified the sanction proposed in Conclusion of Law 2 from reprimand to revocation.
The modifications are explained in the Cornmission’s reasoning below.
1n the Matter of Sean M. Callahan, OAH Case No. 901 190
Page 6 of 13 _

ORS 342.1 75(1) states the grounds upon which the Commission may discipline a teacher.
T hat statute states in pertinent part:

The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission may suspend or revoke
the license or registration of a teacher or administrator, discipline a teacher
or administrator or suspend 0r revoke the right of any person to apply for a
license or registration if the person has held a license or registration at any
time within five years prior to issuance of the notice of charges under ORS
342.176 based 0n the following: * * * (b) Gross neglect ofduty; * * *

The Commission 's rules regulating the standards of conduct for licensed teachers and the
grounds upon which it may take disciplinary action to enforce those rules are found in OAR
Chapter 584 division 020. Pertinent to the current matter, a licensed educator may be
sanctioned for the gross neglect of duty, further defined under OAR 584-020-0040(4) as "any
serious and material inattention to or breach of professional responsibilities, ” which may be
evidenced by “[s]ubstantial deviation from professional standards 0f competency set forth in
OAR 584-020-0010 through 584-020-0030. ” OAR 584-020-0040(n).

Particular t0 the allegations in this case, the Commission ofi'ered evidence to show that
Licensee ’s conduct substantially deviated from the professional standards of competency set out
in OAR 584-020-0015(1) and (2), OAR 584-020-0015(2), and OAR 584-020-0010(5). OAR 584-
020-0015, entitled “Curriculum and Instruction, ” provides in relevant parts:

(I) The competent educator measures success by the progress of each student

toward realization of personal potential as a worthy and eflrective citizen, The

competent educator stimulates the spirit of inquiry, the acquisition of knowledge

and understanding, and the thoughtful formulation of goals as they are

appropriate for each individual.

(2) The competent teacher demonstrates:

IF * * * *

(c) Use of current subject matter appropriate to the individual needs of students[. ]

OAR 584-020-0010 addresses additional expectations for competency. Entitled, "The
Competent Educator, " OAR 584-020-0010 provides, in relevant part, as follows:

The Competent Educator

The educator demonstrates a commitment to:

* * * >l< *

(5) Use professional judgment[. ]

In the Matter ofSean M. Callahan, OAH Case No. 901190
Page 7 of l3

The Commission alleged that Licensee failed to meet the requirements of OAR 584-020- ‘
0015, including subsections (1 ) and (2). The record does not support the Commission ’s
argument. "Curriculum and Instruction, ” the title of section 0015 of division 20, while not
considered part of the law,3 does indicate the focus of the particular subsection, in this case on
the development and use of curriculum and instruction. Licensee worked as a substitute teacher
under a restricted license. He had not completed his degree in education and he was not
licensed teacher, There was no evidence that Licensee, as a substitute teacher with a restricted
license, was responsible for development or implementation of curriculum or a course of
instruction. His assignment for that particular period for that day was to edit student papers to
be given back to the regular teacher for review. The evidence does not support a finding that
OAR 584-020-0015 subsections (1 ) and (2) apply to the specific conduct in this case, where
Licensee was acting as a substitute teacher under a restricted license editing papers for the
primary teacher's review prior t0 returning them to the students. However, the record does
support the Commission 's determination that Licensee 's conduct was a substantial deviation
from the expectations for the use of professional judgment by an educator.

The Commission 's witnesses testified to the standard of conduct expected regarding the
use of professional judgment by educators. As an administrator, Principal Mathisen, was in part
responsible for supervising individuals and ensuring compliance with the Commission ‘s
standards and for ensuring his own compliance with those standards. It was the opinion of
Principal Mathisen that Licensee 's conduct deviated from the standard such that it warranted
Licensee ’s exclusion from substituting at La Pine High School. Principal Mathisen based his
decision, in part, on concern that the feedback was in a written form, intended to be read by the
student without verbal explanation at the time it was provided to the student. He was also
concerned with the nature of Licensee 's comments. Principal Mathisen was concerned that
Licensee wrote the comments, including the recommendation that the student see a psychiatrist,
to a student with whom he had no previous relationship, about whom Licensee knew nothing,
without consideration of the impact those statements could have on the student, at school and at
home. Also, the principal noted that the comments seemed to be unrelated to the content of the
student ‘s paper, including Licensee 's references to the 1st Amendment, religion, Christianity and
a priest.

Judy Scales had previously been a teacher, and was the HDESD human resources
director, responsible for employing substitute teachers, at the time of the conduct in question.
Ms. Scales discharged Licensee on the basis that Licensee ’s conduct did not meet the standards
for the use of professional judgment that was expected of teachers or substitute teachers
employed by HDESD. 1n Ms. Scales ’s opinion, it was inappropriate fiJr any teacher or substitute
3 ORS 174.540, entitled “Parts of printed statute editions not to be a part of the law,” provides that:

Title heads, chapter heads, division heads, section and subsection heads or titles, and

explanatory notes and cross-references, * * * in parts of Oregon Revised Statutes, do not

constitute any part of the law.
By analogy, the titles within an administrative rule would not be considered part of the rule but
can be considered as guidance.
In the Matter of Sean M. Callahan, OAH Case No. 901190
Page 8 of 13

teacher to provide written feedback, such as Licensee 's comments which included political and
religious overtones, that unconnected to the students assignment.

The Commission ’s witnesses either have been or are currently bound by the
Commission 's standards and each supervised educators bound by those standards. The
Commission met its burden of proof to show that Licensee 's conduct in writing the comments
constituted a gross neglect of duty, a violation of ORS 342.1 75 (1 )(b) in that it substantially
deviated from expectation that Licensee show a commitment to use professional judgment, in
violation of OAR 584-020-0010(5) as it is incorporated by OAR 584-020-0040(n).

Proposed Penalty

The Commission bases its determination on whether an educator ’s performance is ethical
or competent in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the educator ’s performance
as a whole. OAR 584-020-0000(3). When a violation occurs, the Commission may consider
mitigating factors when determining an appropriate sanction. OAR 584-020-0045.

OAR 584-020-0045 provides as follows:

The Commission may consider one or more of the following factors, as it deems

appropriate, in its determination of what sanction or sanctions, if any, should be

imposed upon a finding that an educator has violated any standard set forth in

OAR 584-020-0040:

(1 ) If the misconduct or violation is an isolated occurrence, part of a continuing
pattern, or one of a series of incidents;
(2) The likelihood of a recurrence of the misconduct or violation;
(3) The educator's past performance;
(4) The extent, severity, and imminence of any danger to students, other
educators, or the public,‘
(5) If the misconduct was open and notorious or had negative efi'ects on the public
image of the school;
(6) The educator's state of mind at the time of the misconduct and afterwards;
(7) The danger that students will imitate the educator's behavior or use it as a
model;
(8) The age and level of maturity of the students served by the educator;
(9) Any extenuating circumstances or other factors bearing on the appropriate
nature of a disciplinary sanction; or
In the Matter of Sean M Callahan, OAH Case No. 901190
Page 9 of l3 _

(10) T o deter similar misconduct by the educator or other educators.

Licensee admitted that he exercised poor discretion in the content of his comments
written to the student. However, Licensee argued that consideration of thefactors set out in the
rule above supports the imposition of a lesser sanction rather than a revocation of his license.

Specifically, Licensee argued that his concern over the mental health of the student,
based on the content of the paper, was justified. His conduct during his years of study prior to
the incident was exemplary. There was no evidence of a pattern of prior inappropriate conduct
and Licensee argued that his conduct did not create a danger to other educators or the public.
Licensee argued that the danger to the student in question was low, in that it was only a potential
harm because the student never saw the comments. Licensee also argues that he was under
stress from financial pressures, physical withdrawal from nicotine, and lack of sleep, at the time
of the conduct, conditions that were unique to that period of time, and which have been
remedied. Licensee was influenced by classes he was taking at the time relating to religion and
1 st Amendment rights. He argued that his conduct could not serve as a model for students
because the comments were not published to the students. Licensee noted that he taught students
at many different levels but admitted that his comments were inappropriate for the age of the
student involved. Finally, Licensee argued that any disciplinary action taken against Licensee
could not act as deterrence to other educators as there has been no public disclosure or
discussion of the matter.

1n consideration of the record as whole, I find consideration of the factors above
mitigates the severity of the conduct and weighs against revocation as the appropriate sanction.
In addition to the mitigating factors above, although the Commission proved that Licensee 's
conduct violated OAR 584-020-0010(5), Licensee did not violate OAR 584-020-0015 subsections
(I) or (2)(c) or (2)(e) as alleged in the Notice. Therefore, 1 propose that, in lieu of license
revocation, the Commission issue a Letter of Reprimand to Licensee and require Licensee to
complete a course of professional counseling or of additional educationally related coursework
as the Commission deems appropriate.

The Commission rejects the ALJ’s reasoning on the applicability of OAR 584-020-0015
in this case. The ALJ concluded there wasn’t sufficient evidence to conclude that the rule
applied to the facts in this case because Licensee was “not a licensed teacher” and because “there
was no evidence that Licensee, as a substitute teacher with a restricted license, was responsible
for development or implementation of curriculum 0r a course of instruction.” The ALJ ‘s
reasoning has misconstrued the Commission’s interpretation of the rule and its applicability to
Licensee’s conduct. All licensed educators are responsible for carrying out the district’s
curriculum and instruction, whether they are veteran educators 0r one-time substitutes. In this
case, Licensee was assigned to comment on student papers. The student papers were part of the
school’s curriculum. In making cements on the student papers, the Commission expects that
Licensee would have made appropriate comments that advance the district's curriculum and
instruction of students. As Principal Mathisen testified, substitute teachers are held to the same
standard of conduct as other licensed staff.

In the Matter ofSean M. Callahan, OAH Case No. 901190
Page 10 of 13

Here, Licensee’s conduct violated OAR 584-020-0015(l) because the comments he put
on the student’s papers did not stimulate the spirit of inquiry, acquisition of knowledge or
understanding. Instead, comments about recommending a psychiatrist, calling the student a
“scary little dude”, or commenting about the student’s religion or priest were only critical of the
student as a person and the student’s mental health. There was no relationship between
Licensee’s comments and the subject matter of the student’s paper from which the student could
learn anything meaningful.

Likewise, Licensee’s conduct violated OAR 584-020-0015(2) because Licensee’s
comments demonstrated an inability to choose subject matter that was appropriate for the
student. Licensee did not personally know the student or the student’s personal circumstances.
Licensee was asked to comment on the student’s paper. Licensee should have limited his
comments to the composition 0f the paper. Instead, Licensee raised subject matter speculating
about the student’s mental health and religion, subjects which were inappropriate to discuss in
the context of the student’s paper.

The Commission also rcj ects the ALJ’s proposed sanction in this case. The specific
sanction imposed in any given case is a matter that is within the Commission’s discretion. In this
case, the Commission finds that Licensee’s conduct showed very poor judgment. While he
recognized at the hearing that he exercised poor judgment, he nevertheless minimized his
conduct by testifying that his concern for the student was justified. If it’s true that Licensee was
concerned for the student, Licensee could have notified the principal of this concern in order that
someone else who knew the student personally could properly address the issue. Moreover,
calling the student a “scary little dude” and commenting about his religion does not show any
concern; it shows a disregard for what Licensee speculated was the student’s personal situation at
the time. Both the school and Licensee’s employer believed that Licensee’s comments were

serious enough that it warranted exclusion from the school and substitute list. The Commission
agrees with that assessment, and for purposes of licensing believes that a more serious sanction
will serve to deter this type of conduct in the fixture.
EXCEPTIONS

Licensee filed four emails with the Commission that the Commission considers
exceptions to the Proposed Order. Licensee’s email of March 24, 2010, explained that the
comments were the result of him misrepresenting himself as an anti-Christian. He appeared to
justify the conduct by indicating that he was going through quitting smoking and that children in
the district threatened to tell the principal things about him that were not true. He also explained
that he has now learned that it is important to be accepted by Christians. Licensee’s email of
April 2 also raised issues about religion and about things “calming down” since joining the
Foursquare church. He implied that people removed him from education because he was not a
Christian role model, but that he was now ready to teach and was willing to be a role model that
“they want.”

Licensee’s explanations for his conduct are not persuasive, but in fact raise more
concerns about his state of mind when he wrote the statements on the student’s paper.
In the Matter of Sean M. Callahan, OAH Case No. 901190
Page ll of 13

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that Licensee’s right to apply for a license
is revoked for one year from the date of this Order.
Jh.
It is so Ordered this [5} day of May, 2010,
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
STATE OF OREGON
a . i ‘1}
By I
Victoria Chamberlain, Executive Director
EXCEPTIONS
The amended proposed order is the Commission’s anticipated Final Order. If you
disagree with any part of this proposed order, you may file written objections, called
"exceptions," to the amended proposed order and present written argument in support of your
exceptions. The Commission will then consider your exceptions in entering a final order.
Written argument and exceptions must be filed within fourteen (14) days after mailing of the
proposed order with the:
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
465 Commercial Street, NE
Salem OR 97301
The Commission need not allow oral argument. The Executive Director may permit oral
argument in those cases in which the Director believes oral argument may be appropriate or
helpful to the Commissioners in making a final determination. If oral argument is allowed, the
Commission will inform you of the time and place for presenting oral argument.
1n the Matter ofSeun M. Callahan, OAH Case No. 901190
Page 12 of l3 -

l
' l l
‘r r~,—i~'1rfm i ~ . ‘
5 ' til Phillrli iiiilulkfilrli lih\il}llll/I“liiLtlL\flifi ' = ' f
“Ni/‘I’
On June / , 2010, I mailed the foregoing Amended Proposed Order in OAH Case No. 901190‘
By: First Class Mail I
Kevin Carolan
Attorney at Law
PO Box 2221
Bend OR 97709
B : Shuttle
Raul Ramirez
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem OR 97301-4096
1w /' \
Melo Hanson
Direct of Prof ional Practices
In the Matter ofSean M. Callahan, OAH Case No. 901190
Page 13 of 13