Summary
In Proch, the court held the teacher's proposed realignment of teaching positions was impractical and upheld the teacher's suspension.
Summary of this case from Strand v. Special School Dist. No. 1Opinion
Argued May 4, 1981
June 18, 1981.
Schools — Suspension of tenured professional employe — Reduction in staff — Realignment — Practicalities — Recall — Judgment of school board.
1. When tenured professional employes must be suspended by a school district because of staff reduction necessitated by a decrease in enrollment, a reasonable realignment should be attempted to retain the most senior teacher while providing adequate instruction, but a realignment may properly be found to be impractical and unreasonable which would require a long time department head to teach a subject unrelated to her current area and with which she has had little or no recent experience. [112-13]
2. The decision as to when to recall suspended teachers is a matter within the of a school district, and the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the district in such a matter. [113]
Argued May 4, 1981, before Judges BLATT, CRAIG and MacPHAIL, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1565 C.D. 1980, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County in case of Frederick W. Proch v. New Castle Area School District, No. 24 of 1980, Miscellaneous Division.
Professional employe suspended by New Castle Area School District, Employe appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County. Appeal denied. HENDERSON, J. Specially Presiding. Employe appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Daniel R. Delaney, Delaney and Evans, for appellant.
Dominick Motto, Chambers, Nicolls, Paul Motto, for appellee.
Frederick W. Proch (appellant), a tenured professional employee of the New Castle Area School District (district), appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County affirming an action of the Board of School Directors (board) which Suspended the appellant due to a decline in student enrollment within the district.
The appellant, who is certified to teach biology, earth and space science, was employed by the district for six years as a teacher on its science staff. However, on May 16, 1979 the district's administration recommended that the science department's teaching staff be reduced; the board acquiesced by suspending the appellant.
In compliance with the Local Agency Law, the appellant demanded and received a hearing before the board. During that hearing, the appellant proposed two realignment plans by which the science teaching staff could be reduced without suspending the appellant; under those plans, a Miss Picrell, who is certified to teach French and English in addition to science, would be transferred from the science department to replace either a fifth year English teacher or a fifth year French teacher. However, the board found both proposals to be impractical.
2 Pa. C. S. § 551. et seq., Section 751 et seq.
When reducing teaching staffs, the school district is required, whenever possible to retain its most senior teacher, by reasonable realignment if necessary. Welsko v. Foster Township School District, 383 Pa. 380, 119 A.2d 43 (1956). However, any realignment must be made in a way which allows the remaining teachers to provide adequate instruction in the subjects of those teachers who, because of lesser seniority rights, have been suspended. Smith v. Board of School Directors of Harmony Area School District, 16 Pa. Commw. 175, 328 A.2d 883 (1974). Moreover, a district is not required to realign teachers where the realignment would be impractical. Platko v. Laurel Highlands School District, 49 Pa. Commw. 210, 410 A.2d 960 (1980).
We cannot hold that the record before us is devoid of substantial evidence to support the board's finding that the appellant's realignment proposals are impractical. The record reveals that Miss Picrell has been the chairperson of the biology department at the district's high school for approxmately 27 years. The testimony of the district superintendent indicates that Miss Picrell's long tenure in the position has been effective. Furthermore, both realignments would require Miss Picrell to teach a subject unrelated to biology and one in which she has little or no recent experience.
Where, as here, a complete record is made before the local agency and no evidence is taken by the court below, our scope of review is limited to whether any finding of fact necessary to sustain the adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence. Stets v. McKeesport Area School District, 22 Pa. Commw. 403, 350 A.2d 185 (1975).
Consequently, we hold that the record contains substantial evidence to support the board's conclusion. To hold otherwise would violate the principles enunciated by this court in Smith v. Board of School Directors of Harmony Area School District, supra, and Platko v. Laurel Highlands School District, supra.
The appellant also contends that the district has ignored the attrition of teachers subsequent to his suspension by not recalling him to work. However, when to recall suspended teachers is a judgment within the domain of the district and we cannot substitute our judgment therefor. Tressler v. Upper Dublin School District, 30 Pa. Commw. 171, 373 A.2d 756 (1977). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court below.
ORDER
NOW, June 18, 1981, the June 10, 1980 order of the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed.