White v. Scott County School Dist. No. R-V

• Decision Date: 28 November 1973
• Docket Number: No. 9474,R--V,9474
• Citation: 503 S.W.2d 35
• Parties: Garnet H. WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.et al., Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 35

503 S.W.2d 35

Garnet H. WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. R--V et al., Defendants-Respondents.

No. 9474.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District.

Nov. 28, 1973.

Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer to Supreme Court Denied

Dec. 17, 1973.

Application to Transfer Denied Feb. 11, 1974.

Paul Seabaugh, Cable & Seabaugh, Kennett, for plaintiff-appellant.

Fielding Potashnick, Sikeston, for defendants-respondents.

TITUS, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff, a probationary teacher (§ 168.104(5) RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.) of Scott County School District No. R-V, commenced this action in reliance on her interpretation of § 168.126 of the Teacher Tenure Act. §§ 168.102 to 168.130. Three of the five initial counts of the petition were dismissed by plaintiff before the cause (via a stipulation of facts) was submitted to the Circuit Court of Mississippi County after a change of venue. By Count I, plaintiff asked that defendants (the school district and members of its board) be required to reinstate her as a teacher; in Count III she sought $6,950 in damages from the school district. The trial court entered judgment for defendants on both counts and plaintiff appealed.

The board of education is permitted by § 168.126, subd. 1 to contract with and employ a probationary teacher; the section provides that the 'contract . . . shall specify the number of months school is to be taught and the wages per month to be paid.' In part, § 168.126, subd. 2 states: 'If in the opinion of the board of education any probationary teacher has been doing unsatisfactory work, the board of education . . . shall provide the teacher with a written statement definitely setting forth his alleged incompetency and specifying the nature thereof . . .. If improvement satisfactory to the board of education has not been made within ninety days of the receipt of the notification, the board of education may terminate the employment of the probationary teacher immediately or at the end of the school year. . . . On or before the fifteenth day of April but not before April first in each school year, the board of education shall notify a probationary teacher who will not be retained by the school district of the termination of his employment.' Under § 168.126, subd. 3, a 'probationary teacher who is not notified of the termination of his employment shall be deemed to have been appointed for the next school year, under the terms of the contract for the preceding year.'

According to the stipulation of facts, plaintiff had been employed by defendant school district as a probationary teacher for the 1970--71 school year. On April 8, 1972 (1971?), the district determined she 'was an unsatisfactory teacher and failed to renew (her) teacher's contract for 1971--72, (and) did not give (her) notice in writing specifying her alleged teaching deficiencies, and did not afford (plaintiff) the opportunity to correct those alleged deficiencies, within the ninety (90) day period set forth in' § 168.126, subd. 2, and on 'April 9, 1971, (plaintiff) received notice from (the district) that her teaching contract for the school year 1971--72 would not be renewed.' At this point it is well to note that plaintiff does not contend there was any interruption of her 1970--71 contract by defendants or that she was not fully compensated in accordance with that particular agreement.

Except incidentally, we are not here involved with indefinite contracts (§ 168.104(3)) between a permanent teacher (§ 168.104(4)) and a school district (§ 168.104(6)) that, subject to § 168.106, continue in effect indefinitely and which may be modified (§ 168.110) by a board of education (§ 168.104(1)) or terminated for the reasons stated in § 168.114 only following due notice (§ 168.116) and hearing (§ 168.118), after which a permanent teacher who has been demoted or whose indefinite contract has been terminated, is afforded a right of appeal. § 168.120. However, a comparison of the statutory provisions relating to contracts of permanent teachers who have tenure and agreements between a school district and a probationary teacher who has no tenure, makes it clear that probationary teachers' contracts are annual agreements for one school term (§ 160.011(11)) or one school year, and that appointment of the probationary teacher for the next school year on the same terms is automatic only if he is not notified of the termination of his employment between April 1 and 15 of the current contract year. § 168.126, supra.

As we comprehend plaintiff's urgings, she asseverates that although she was duly notified on April 9, 1971, that her employment was to be terminated at the conclusion of the 1970--71 school year, nevertheless since the district, on April 8, 1971, had determined that she 'was an unsatisfactory teacher,' the board was powerless to prevent her continued employment into the 197...