Coleman v. Sch. Dist. of Rochester

• Citation: 183 A. 586
• Parties: COLEMAN et al. v. SCHOOL DIST. OF ROCHESTER et al.
• Decision Date: 04 February 1936
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

183 A. 586

COLEMAN et al.

v. SCHOOL DIST. OF ROCHESTER et al.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Strafford.

Feb. 4, 1936.

Transferred from Superior Court, Strafford County; Sawyer, Judge.

Petition for a declaratory judgment by Mabelle M. Coleman and others against the School District of Rochester and others. Case transferred from trial term without ruling.

Case discharged.

Petition for a declaratory judgment, brought by married women to test the validity of a requirement and regulation affecting their standing as teachers in the schools of Rochester. The requirement directs that no married woman shall be nominated or elected to any teaching position in the city, and the regulation provides that a woman teacher's marriage while in teaching service shall automatically terminate her contract at a time the regulation prescribes. The plaintiffs with one exception have long been married. They have taught in the Rochester schools for periods varying from seven to twenty-four years. They constitute one-seventh of the women teachers of the city. The fitness of all of them to teach is admitted. Pending the outcome of this suit they have been retained as teachers, but without the usual contract running for the school year. Transferred without ruling by Sawyer, C J.

Cooper & Hall, of Rochester, for plaintiffs.

Guy Smart, of Rochester, for defendants.

ALLEN, Chief Justice.

The inquiry relates to the powers of school boards in prescribing tests for the eligibility of teachers for nomination and election and in adopting rules for their dismissal. The existence of the power and the manner of its exercise are both challenged.

Respecting the power, its grant is wholly a matter of legislative discretion. Contrary to the plaintiffs' assertion, no constitutional issue of personal rights is involved. No one has a guaranteed or vested right to become or to continue in position as a public school teacher, even subject to regulation. The Legislature, if it saw fit, might enact that teachers should be elected by popular vote or subject to dismissal at pleasure. The scope of legislative authority in the premises is virtually untrammeled and unhampered. The Constitution, recognizing the subject of education as "one of paramount public importance," merely enjoins that it be "cherished, regulated, and controlled by the State." In re Farnum's Petition, 51 N.H. 376, 378, 379; Wooster v. Plymouth, 62 N.H. 193, 206-208; State v. Jackson, 71 N.H. 552, 553, 554, 53 A. 1021, 60 L.R.A. 739. As will hereinafter appear, the courts may not declare acts of the Legislature void on the sole issue whether they are "wholesome and reasonable." The Legislature is to judge whether they are for "the benefit and welfare" of the state. Constitution, pt. 2, art. 5.

The legislation, however, is to be examined to determine the action taken in granting power. That now in force is to be construed to ascertain what powers a local school board has to ordain qualifications for the teachers of its district and how far it may impose regulations bearing on their conduct. The construction is to be determined in the light of repealed and amended enactments upon the subject.

Until 1895 school boards were to "select and hire suitable and competent teachers." P.S. c. 92, § 2. They were governed in their duty by no supervision or established tests of qualification. In that year the law was amended by requiring a certificate of qualification for a candidate to be eligible. The certificate was to be given after a satisfactory examination, to be held by the local board, in the studies to be taught, and upon proof of "good moral character and capacity for government." Laws 1895, c. 50, § 2. At the same time a law (Laws 1895, c. 49) was passed imposing the duty upon the state superintendent of public instruction to hold examinations of candidates for teaching positions, to test their professional and scholastic abilities. Certificates were to issue to those passing satisfactory examinations and "in other respects" fulfilling the requirements of the superintendent. Local boards were authorized to accept them in lieu of the examinations they conducted, but optionally. In 1899 the option was eliminated, and the acceptance of the state superintendent's certificates by the local boards was required in all cases. Laws 1899, c. 12. Since the state certificates were thus to supplant local certificates, the law had the effect of dispensing with local examinations, except in the possible failure of satisfactory teachers with state certificates to meet the demand.

In 1915 an act "establishing an employment bureau for teachers" was passed. Laws 1915, c. 156. It provided that upon request from local officials the state superintendent should recommend teachers for employment "as they shall appear to be fit and qualified" (section 2) from a list of registered applicants whose registration was dependent upon proof of "character, qualifications, education, and experience" required by the superintendent. Section 1,

In 1919 a policy of centralizing the state's educational system under a uniform administration and control was adopted. Laws 1919, c. 106. This act created a state board of education with the "same powers of management, supervision and direction over all public schools in this state as the directors of the ordinary business corporation have over the business of the corporation, except as its powers and duties may be limited by law." Section 5 (1). The board has the duty to "prescribe the qualifications and duties" of various officers and agents and of "teachers employed in the public schools, the subjects required to be taught and the minimum educational standards for all grades of the public schools." Section 5 (3). The act also requires school boards to elect teachers from nominations presented by the local superintendent of schools. Section 12.

In an act passed in 1921 to revise and codify the school laws (Laws 1921, c. 85), part 1 (section 1 et seq.), devoted to state organization incorporates the sections of the 1919 act already cited in conferring powers and imposing duties upon the state board. It also contains the inclusions of the earlier acts relating to the examination, registration, and certification of teachers. In part 2 (section 1 et seq.) is adopted the requirement for school boards to elect teachers from the nominations of the local superintendent.

The foregoing legislation shows a consistent, persistent, and progressive policy leading to the vesting in the state board of sole authority to determine the qualifications of teachers. No one may reasonably argue that a school board may adopt bylaws lowering the standards set by the state board. While there may be some force in the position that local standards may be raised, the policy of the legislation is not thought to countenance it. Its order that the state board "shall prescribe the qualifications and duties of * * * all * * * teachers employed" makes the board the sole authority, as the language reads. Nothing is found which admits departure therefrom or exception thereto. A certificate from the state board proves eligibility for nomination and election. The local superintendent may refuse to nominate a certified teacher and the local board refuse to elect, but the refusal or declination may not be on the ground of insufficient qualification. The Legislature having created a source of authority, the courts may not for reasons regarded by them to be of practical expediency hold a surplus authority to exist elsewhere.

The transition from sole local to sole state authority is shown to be designed from the course of the legislation. The state board is to say when eligibility exists. The local board may not rightfully deny it. If a local board desires to engage teachers with qualifications not required by the state board, its election powers may enable it to thus act; but it may not hold applicants with state certificates ineligible for nomination, or make valid rules barring them from election if nominated.

Qualification denotes a successful test of eligibility. Certain established standards are met. It is enough that they are minimum standards. On their attainment one is qualified. To require higher unattained standards is to disqualify one having no more than minimum standards. No provision or operation of the law has been pointed out which justifies a local board to disqualify a teacher certified by the state board to be qualified. The state certificate gives the holder eligibility throughout the state. That the raising of standards by local boards may be of infrequent resort and limited to a few districts is immaterial. If it may be done at all, it may be done generally and to any degree of excellence.

Among the objects for which the state board may expend appropriations for general educational purposes are the following:

"Equalization. For equalizing educational opportunity and improving the public schools, below college grade, with the definite aim of extending school terms, stimulating local interest and improving, through better instruction, gradation and supervision, all rural schools and schools in sparsely settled localities."

"Instructing Teachers. For preparing teachers for the schools, particularly for rural schools, for encouraging a more nearly universal [sic, uniform] preparation of prospective teachers, and for extending the facilities for the improvement of teachers already in the service." P.L. c. 116, § 14, subds. 3, 6.

These provisions, in promotion of uniform and equal educational advantages and facilities, serve to strengthen the support of a...