Schofield v. Richland County School Dist.
Decision Date | 14 May 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 24110,24110 |
Citation | 447 S.E.2d 189,316 S.C. 78 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
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 |
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.
Margaret Schofield (Teacher) brought this action alleging that Richland County School District (School District) 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.
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 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 that school. Thereafter, the District Superintendent notified Teacher that her employment would not be continued beyond the conclusion of the 1990-91 school year because of "concerns with her classroom management and quality of instruction." This action followed.
Teacher alleges that the trial judge erred in holding that section 59-26-40 did not require the School District to provide remedial procedures for all performance concerns prior to its refusal to rehire her. We disagree.
Section 59-26-40 provides:
A person who receives a teaching certificate as provided in § 59-26-30 may be employed by any school district under a nonrenewable provisional contract....
Each school district shall use the evaluation instrument developed in accordance with § 59-26-30 to observe all provisional teachers at least three times. The results of the observations must be compiled to constitute an evaluation and must be provided to the teacher in writing. Each school district shall give provisional teachers appropriate advice and assistance to help remedy any deficiencies that are detected by the three required observations. The advice and assistance includes, but is not limited to, state procedures and programs developed in accordance with § 59-26-30. Following this remediation, those teachers who do not initially perform at the level required by the evaluation instrument must be observed three more times and the results of the observations must be compiled to constitute a second evaluation.
At the end of a one-year provisional contract period, the evaluation must be reviewed by the school district to determine if the provisional teacher has performed at the level required by the evaluation instrument. If the evaluation indicates that the provisional teacher has performed in an adequate manner, the teacher is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anonymous (M-156-90) v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners
...situations, 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. ......
-
Creighton v. Coligny Plaza Ltd.
...on appeal. 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 (1994). At the pretrial conference, the Creightons' attorney objected to bifurcation because he did not want the juror......
-
Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation Horizontal Property Regime
...the jury. 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 argume......
-
Hickum v. Hickum
...precise argument to the trial court; consequently, I concur in the result reached by the majority. See Schofield v. Richland County Sch. Dist., 316 S.C. 78, 447 S.E.2d 189 (1994) (an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to be considered on appeal); White v. Liv......
-
VOLUME II Chapter 23 Public Employees
...S.C. Code Ann. § 59-26-40; S.C. Code Regs. § 43-205.1.[138] S.C. Code Ann. § 59-26-40; see Schofield v. Richland County Sch. Dist., 316 S.C. 78, 447 S.E.2d 189 (1994).[139] S.C. Code Ann. § 59-25-410; see Johnson v. Spartanburg County Sch. Dist. No. 7, 314 S.C. 340, 444 S.E.2d 501 (1994).[1......
-
Chapter 34 Production of Documents and Things and Entry Upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes
...Tire & Rubber Co., 248 S.C. 412, 150 S.E.2d 525 (1966).[31] Wofford v. Ethyl Corp., 316 S.C. 75, 447 S.E.2d 187 (1994).[32] Id. at 77, 447 S.E.2d at 189.[33] 1 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence § 197b at 299 (1941).[34] Id. § 201 at 314.[35] Rule 901(a), SCRE.[36] Rule 1002, SCRE.[37] Rules 801......