Schofield v. Richland County School Dist., No. 24110
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | LITTLEJOHN; CHANDLER, Acting C.J., FINNEY and MOORE, JJ., and WILLIAM P. KEESLEY |
| Citation | 447 S.E.2d 189,316 S.C. 78 |
| Parties | , 93 Ed. Law Rep. 974 Margaret SCHOFIELD, Appellant, v. RICHLAND COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, John Stevenson, Superintendent, Richland County School District # 1, Reverend William Bowman, William Halligan, Leon Howard, Carol T. Lee, Chris Lindsay, Darrell Jackson and Jasper Salmond, as members of the Board of Richland County School District Number 1, Respondents. . Heard |
| Decision Date | 14 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 24110 |
Page 189
v.
RICHLAND COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, John Stevenson,
Superintendent, Richland County School District # 1,
Reverend William Bowman, William Halligan, Leon Howard,
Carol T. Lee, Chris Lindsay, Darrell Jackson and Jasper
Salmond, as members of the Board of Richland County School
District Number 1, Respondents.
Decided July 5, 1994.
Page 190
[316 S.C. 79] William T. Toal, of Johnson, Toal & Battiste, Columbia, for appellant.
Kenneth L. Childs, M. Jane Turner, and Andrea E. White, of Childs & Duff, Columbia, for respondents.
LITTLEJOHN, Acting Associate Justice.
Margaret Schofield (Teacher) brought this action alleging that Richland County School District (School District) [316 S.C. 80] breached its duty to provide remedial opportunities for perceived teaching deficiencies before refusing to renew her provisional contract. Teacher claimed damages, costs, and reinstatement. The trial judge, in a non-jury term, dismissed the complaint with prejudice on the ground that the School District may refuse to renew the contract of a provisional teacher on the basis of performance concerns that arise independent of the statutory evaluation and remediation procedures. Teacher appealed. We affirm.
I. Facts
The School District hired Teacher for the 1990-91 school year under a provisional contract in accordance with S.C.Code Ann. § 59-26-40 (1990). At the beginning of her term, Teacher was given an orientation to the teacher evaluation process and a copy of the evaluation instrument, the Assessments of Performance in Teaching Test (APT). During three class instructions, Teacher was evaluated under the APT and received a passing score on each of these evaluations.
During the school year, Teacher's supervisors developed concerns about her discipline and control in the classroom, failure to provide planned, appropriate instruction, and uncooperative behavior. Specifically, her supervisors noted an inordinate amount of noise often could be heard from her classroom, her class had been playing basketball during required instructional times, several parents had complained about her behavior, and the teachers on her teaching team had
Page 191
stated that she either failed to contribute or missed team meetings.After a formal observation of Teacher's class in March, her principal informed her that she did not intend to recommend Teacher for reassignment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Creighton v. Coligny Plaza Ltd., No. 2909.
...An issue not raised to or ruled on by the trial court is not preserved for appellate review. Schofield v. Richland County Sch. Dist., 316 S.C. 78, 447 S.E.2d 189 At the pretrial conference, the Creightons' attorney objected to bifurcation because he did not want the jurors to hear "sterile ......
-
Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation Horizontal Property Regime, No. 2621
...I would not address that argument because it has not been properly preserved for our review. See Schofield v. Richland County Sch. Dist., 316 S.C. 78, 447 S.E.2d 189 (1994) (an issue not raised to or ruled on by the trial court is not preserved for appellate review). In his argument at tria......
-
Anonymous (M-156-90) v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners, M-156-90
...appellate court cannot address issue unless it was raised to, and ruled upon by, trial court); Schofield v. Richland County Sch. Dist., 316 S.C. 78, 447 S.E.2d 189 (1994) (issue not raised to or ruled upon by trial judge is not properly before Supreme Court on appeal); State v. Williams, 31......
-
Allendale County Bank v. Cadle, No. 3422.
...An issue not raised to or ruled on by the trial court is not preserved for appellate review. Schofield v. Richland County Sch. Dist, 316 S.C. 78, 82, 447 S.E.2d 189, 191 However, even if this issue were preserved, a review of the case law provides no support for this argument since the issu......
-
Creighton v. Coligny Plaza Ltd., No. 2909.
...An issue not raised to or ruled on by the trial court is not preserved for appellate review. Schofield v. Richland County Sch. Dist., 316 S.C. 78, 447 S.E.2d 189 At the pretrial conference, the Creightons' attorney objected to bifurcation because he did not want the jurors to hear "ste......
-
Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation Horizontal Property Regime, No. 2621
...I would not address that argument because it has not been properly preserved for our review. See Schofield v. Richland County Sch. Dist., 316 S.C. 78, 447 S.E.2d 189 (1994) (an issue not raised to or ruled on by the trial court is not preserved for appellate review). In his argument at tria......
-
Anonymous (M-156-90) v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners, M-156-90
...appellate court cannot address issue unless it was raised to, and ruled upon by, trial court); Schofield v. Richland County Sch. Dist., 316 S.C. 78, 447 S.E.2d 189 (1994) (issue not raised to or ruled upon by trial judge is not properly before Supreme Court on appeal); State v. Williams, 31......
-
Allendale County Bank v. Cadle, No. 3422.
...An issue not raised to or ruled on by the trial court is not preserved for appellate review. Schofield v. Richland County Sch. Dist, 316 S.C. 78, 82, 447 S.E.2d 189, 191 However, even if this issue were preserved, a review of the case law provides no support for this argument since the issu......