McElroy v. Jasper School Dist., 80-309

• Decision Date: 15 June 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80-309,80-309
• Citation: 617 S.W.2d 356,273 Ark. 143
• Parties: Norman S. McELROY, Appellant, v. JASPER SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 356

617 S.W.2d 356

273 Ark. 143

Norman S. McELROY, Appellant, v.JASPER SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee.

No. 80-309.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 15, 1981.

Cearley, Gitchel, Mitchell & Bryant by Richard W. Roachell, Little Rock, for appellant.

Pinson & Reeves by Kenneth R. Reeves, Harrison, for appellee.

PURTLE, Justice.

The Newton County Circuit Court upheld the Jasper School District Board of Education in its refusal to renew the contract of the appellant who was a probationary teacher.For reversal appellant argues the appellee school district violated her rights by failing to strictly observe the statestatutes and policies adopted by the school board.We feel the board acted within its authority and substantially complied with the state law and the board's own policies.

The appellant was employed by the appellee school district for a school term beginning on August 20, 1979, and expiring on May 16, 1980.This was appellant's first year as a teacher.According to the principal and superintendent of schools, during the year she experienced problems in maintaining classroom discipline.She was counseled several times concerning problems in her work and the lack of progress made in remedying the deficiencies.When it was time for renewal of the contract, the appellant was not recommended for a second contract.Appellant was notified by a letter from the superintendent, dated April 2, 1980, that he would not recommend her contract be renewed.He gave reasons for his action and offered her an opportunity to request a hearing before the school board.The hearing was requested and held on May 5, 1980.The appellant was present and represented by a person from the Arkansas Education Association.

Pursuant to Ark.Stat.Ann. § 80-1256(Repl.1980), the board adopted personnel policies.Ark.Stat.Ann. § 80-1259(Repl.1980) requires that copies of the personnel policies will be furnished to each teacher employed by the district.The testimony indicates that appellant was not furnished a copy of the current personnel policies.Among the policies adopted by the school board were: the requirement that a teacher be evaluated at least twice during the school term; that teachers be given a written copy of their evaluations; and that teachers sign their evaluations.It is not disputed that the administrative personnel of the district failed to strictly comply with these particular policies.

Following the hearing by the school board on May 5, 1980, appellant was notified that the board was following the recommendation of the superintendent and not renewing her contract for the following year.An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Newton County pursuant to Ark.Stat.Ann. § 80-1264.9(Repl.1980).The circuit court affirmed the action of the school board.

The Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of 1979, as amended, provides that teachers with more than three years' experience shall have a right to a hearing when their contract is not renewed.A teacher who has not completed three successive years' employment in the district does not have a right to a hearing upon failure to renew the contract.Section 9 of Act 766 of 1979 is codified as Ark.Stat.Ann. § 80-1264.8(Repl.1980).This statute authorizes a first year teacher or any teacher to request a hearing upon receipt of a notice of recommended termination.However, only a teacher with more than three successive years with the district is entitled to a hearing for non-renewal recommendations.

In the present case it is not disputed by the parties that the formal notice required by the act was properly given.There is no dispute that the appellant is a "probationary teacher."Since Act 766 has not given the appellant the right to a renewal of her contract, to be given any reason for non-renewal, or even to have a hearing upon failure to renew, we must determine if there are other grounds which grant such a right.The only other possible grounds are the district's own policies.We have many times held that the sole power to terminate a teacher's contract is vested in...