Board of Educ. of Benton Harbor Area Schools v. Wolff

• Decision Date: 01 February 1985
• Docket Number: Docket No. 69450
• Citation: 22 Ed. Law Rep. 1257,361 N.W.2d 750,139 Mich.App. 148
• Parties: BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BENTON HARBOR AREA SCHOOLS, Petitioner-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Nancy WOLFF, Respondent-Appellee and Cross-Appellant. 139 Mich.App. 148, 361 N.W.2d 750, 22 Ed. Law Rep. 1257
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 750

361 N.W.2d 750

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BENTON HARBOR AREA SCHOOLS Petitioner-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Nancy WOLFF, Respondent-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.

Docket No. 69450.

139 Mich.App. 148, 361 N.W.2d 750, 22 Ed. Law Rep. 1257

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Feb. 8, 1984.

Decided Nov. 19, 1984.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1985.

Released for Publication Feb. 1, 1985.

[139 MICHAPP 150] Small, Small, Dettman & Grumbine, P.C. by Stephen C. Small, Benton Harbor, for petitioner-appellant and cross-appellee.

Foster, Swift, Collins & Coey, P.C. by Arthur R. Przybylowicz, Lansing, for respondent-appellee and cross-appellant.

[139 MICHAPP 151] Before KELLY, P.J., and MAHER and REILLY ^*, JJ.

REILLY, Judge.

On June 30, 1980, petitioner, Board of Education of Benton Harbor Area Schools, dismissed respondent from her teaching position on the ground that respondent had failed to establish and maintain control over her students. Respondent appealed to the State Tenure Commission, which held that the discharge was without reasonable and just cause because respondent was not afforded an adequate opportunity to correct the deficiencies which existed in her classroom performance. On June 17, 1981, the commission ordered that respondent be reinstated to a classroom position with petitioner effective at the start of the 1981-1982 school year. It further ordered petitioner to provide training to respondent in the areas of classroom control and student discipline during the period between the date of the commission's decision and respondent's return to the classroom. Proceedings on the issue of "salary lost" were held in abeyance pending the completion of the 1981-1982 school year. Petitioner appealed from the commission's decision to the circuit court, which affirmed. Petitioner appeals as of right. Respondent has filed a cross-appeal claiming that she is entitled to be immediately reinstated and awarded all lost pay.

On review, this Court must determine whether the commission's order was authorized by law, and was supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record. ¹

The facts as found by the State Tenure Commission are not in dispute. Respondent was a tenured teacher employed by petitioner since 1965. The [139 MICHAPP 152] majority of her teaching career with the Benton Harbor Schools was in an elementary school position at the Sorter Elementary School. The Sorter school is located in a rural section of the Benton Harbor district and the student population at Sorter is largely white, middle and lower socio-economic class. Respondent's overall teaching performance at Sorter was evaluated as satisfactory, although there were noted performance difficulties in the area of classroom management and student discipline.

Following a maternity leave for the 1978-79 school year, respondent was assigned to the fourth grade position at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School. ² The King school is located within the City of Benton Harbor and is composed of a predominately black student population.

Respondent began experiencing classroom difficulties almost immediately upon commencement of the 1979-80 school year. ³ These problems centered around respondent's inability to establish effective methods of classroom control. The control problems subverted the instructional process in the classroom. ⁴

Administrators made numerous observations of respondent's classroom, followed by conferences with respondent. The building administrator and [139 MICHAPP 153] central administrative staff found respondent's classroom performance unsatisfactory. Supervisors provided respondent with suggestions for improving her deficiencies. On February 29, 1980, respondent was relieved of her classroom duties and assigned to a noninstructional position.

On March 11, 1980, charges were filed with petitioner board alleging 11 areas of unsatisfactory performance, concluding that respondent was unfit to teach. The board proceeded on the charges pursuant to provisions of Article IV of the teacher tenure act, M.C.L. Sec. 38.101 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 15.2001 et seq. By decision dated June 30, 1980, petitioner board found that several of the charges were substantiated and ordered respondent discharged. The board concluded that respondent had failed to establish control over her students, creating an ineffective learning environment in the classroom and a resulting adverse effect on the district.

Respondent appealed to the State Tenure Commission alleging that the record before the board of education did not support a finding of reasonable and just cause for discharge. De novo proceedings were held before the commission. On June 17, 1981, the commission, one member dissenting, issued its decision. The only portion of the decision relevant to the present appeal is the commission's findings with regard to the charge that respondent was incompetent to teach. The commission found that, despite extensive efforts made by petitioner to provide assistance to respondent in the area of effective classroom management techniques, respondent's discharge was improper because she was not afforded an adequate opportunity to correct the deficiencies in her classroom performance. The State Tenure Commission ordered the following relief:

[139 MICHAPP 154] "Appellant shall be reinstated to a classroom position with appellee effective the start of the 1981-82 school year. In the interim, appellant shall be afforded preplacement training by appellee in the area of classroom control and student discipline. During the period of reinstatement, appellant shall be subjected to the same evaluation process as other teachers and shall be provided access to staff development personnel and other resources available to the Benton Harbor teaching staff. If, after a reasonable adjustment period, appellant's classroom has not reached a satisfactory performance level, the board may return to this forum and offer further proofs before this Commission on the charges filed and now pending before us. At that time, a final decision incorporating these additional proofs will be rendered. If appellant's performance achieves a satisfactory level by the end of the school year and agreement cannot be reached, the parties may seek a decision on the amount of 'salary lost' pursuant to Shiffer [v Gibraltar School District, 393 Mich 190; 224 NW2d 255 (1974) ]." (Footnote omitted.)

The circuit court affirmed.

The discharge or demotion of a teacher on continuing tenure may be made only for reasonable and just cause. M.C.L. Sec. 38.101; M.S.A. Sec. 15.2001. Reasonable and just cause can be shown only by significant evidence proving that a teacher is unfit to teach. The focus of the evidence must be the effect of the teacher's questioned activity on the students. Beebee v. Haslett Public Schools, 66 Mich.App. 718, 724, 239 N.W.2d 724 (1976), rev'd. on other grounds 406 Mich. 224, 278 N.W.2d 37 (1979). The Supreme Court in Beebee held that reasonable and just cause for dismissal may be established by substantial evidence that the teacher's classroom is significantly more disorderly or unsafe than would be reasonably expected. 406 Mich. pp. 233-234, 278 N.W.2d 37.

The commission in this case cited several State [139 MICHAPP 155] Tenure Commission decisions for the proposition that a controlling board, before discharging a teacher, must give the teacher the opportunity to correct the alleged deficiencies. ⁵ The commission found that the teaching environment at the King school was substantially different from that encountered by respondent at the Sorter school, and further held that since respondent was not given "preplacement" training prior to the commencement of her duties at King, she was denied an adequate opportunity to correct the deficiencies in her classroom performance.

Although the commission has consistently required that a teacher be given an opportunity to correct his or her deficiencies prior to discharge, we note that the asserted requirement is not found in any provision of the teacher tenure act any Michigan appellate court decision. This Court agrees with the general principle prohibiting a teacher's discharge based on inadequate classroom performance unless the teacher is first notified of and given a reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiency; however, we believe that the "opportunity" must necessarily be limited to providing the teacher with a reasonable time to improve, considering all the circumstances.

While the State Tenure Commission is "vested with such powers as are necessary to carry out and enforce the provisions of this act", M.C.L. Sec. 38.137; M.S.A. Sec. 15.2037, it has not been authorized to exercise equitable jurisdiction. The State Tenure Commission is a quasi-judicial body created by the [139 MICHAPP 156] Legislature. Unless expressly authorized, a legislative tribunal does not have equitable jurisdiction. Dation v. Ford Motor Co., 314 Mich. 152, 22 N.W.2d 252 (1946). We find no provision in the teacher tenure act authorizing the commission to exercise equitable powers by requiring a controlling board to take affirmative steps to afford specialized training to a teacher who has failed to perform his or her professional duties. We hold that the State Tenure Commission erred in assuming the authority to order equitable relief. We agree with the observations expressed by Member Gibson in her dissenting opinion in this case:

"My greatest concern lies with the remedy fashioned by the majority. The Act, as I read it, does not contain a provision affording this Commission the authority to order the retraining of a teacher or to subject the teacher, her students and the employer to a trial period of employment beyond the statutory period of probation. Article IV, Section 3, MCL 38.103; MSA 15.2003, provides only for reinstatement with payment of salary lost. This is the only relief provided by the Legislature. Had ...