*1 Dist., [Civ. No. 41799. Second Div. Two. Jan. 1974.] CENTINELA VALLEY SECONDARY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION al., et Plaintiffs v. Appellants, al.,
CENTINELA VALLEY UNION HIGH et SCHOOL DISTRICT Defendants and Respondents.
Counsel Odell and & B. Lawrence for Plaintiffs and Trygstad Trygstad Appellants. Larson, Counsel, John H. and John County J. Deputy County Wagner, Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents.
Opinion
COMPTON, J. at Ianni who is certified to teach Mary (petitioner)1 school secondary level of Los Court Angeles County petitioned Superior for a writ of mandate to the Centinela Union School compel Valley High (the District) District teacher, her as a and thus to classify probationary the District to require grant her certain under Education Code sec- rights tion and a hearing Education Code section 13443 to pursuant determine District’s lack right or thereof to refuse to rehire her for the 1972-1973 school year. was denied and petition petitioner appeals.
Petitioner’s claim to the status of a teacher and the rights probationary attendant on such status flows from her contention 1971- during 1972 school she fulfilled the year of Education Code section requirements Secondary 1 An additional plaintiff Valley nominal was the Teacher’s Centinela Association which purports represent a of the certificated portion employees Valley High the Centinela Union School District. as a classified “Any employee which in pertinent part: 13336.5 provides at least 75 school year one during teaches substitute employee, district were main- the number of schools days percent been which would have class or classes tained in such school year any service, be deemed to have shall absent from taught by teaches, he so school in which the entire probationary employee district, and duties of other rights employees with probationary as probation- have served a complete and shall be deemed to ary employee.” and the dis- turns on the interpretation
The resolution of dispute *4 the “classes which would of intent the cerning legislative underlying phrase District admits absent The have been from service.” taught by person the the statute with single all for invoking that met petitioner requirements by would have been taught that she have classes which taught exception admitted in her “one absent from service.” The petition petitioner each for substituted one semester and the trial court found that petitioner the school during year. two different teachers 1971-1972 1085, is Procedure sections Code of Civil by This governed proceeding the of to if the judgment 1086 and 1110. Hence our view is determine of dis the was a exercise trial court is evidence and proper supported the satisfy require cretion. trial court found that failed to- petitioner The obvious ments of the statute. That is well finding supported. from of is boards and administrators the statute school purpose prevent as circumvent in teachers so hiring their discretion substitute abusing of the tenure of Since this is a proceeding by way teachers. rights preroga writ, demonstrated and the motives tive that abuse must be clearly District considered. may
“It has that unless mandate statutory recognized repeatedly otherwise, is and fixed the the of the teacher created compels position Education, (Matthews v. terms of the contract of Board employment.” 748, 101].) at 198 752 Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.2d p. [18 In be clear. order to mandate must abrogate statutory contract
Facts school the 1971-1972 semester of the first we consider convenience For se- second and the 1972 February from 1971 to run year September to June 1972. mester from February Brooks, In March member of the Wendy faculty permanent at Hawthorne School was leave for High granted maternity requested the first semester of and in June coming year peti- tioner contract teach on signed a substitute basis for Brooks for Wendy that one semester.
In School, of 1971 July another teacher at Hawthorne High Harris, Mrs. Edith and. was an leave for granted requested opportunity 15, 1972, entire 1971-1972 school By contract dated December year. peti- was tioner for Mrs. engaged substitute Harris the second semester during of the school year beginning February 1972.
Pursuant to these contracts as a taught Mrs. Brooks the first semester and for Mrs. Harris for the second semester 1971-1972 school year. 1971-1972 school During year petitioner the same classroom. She occupied five courses in three taught English, which were courses. year-long
By of the next school both Mrs. beginning Brooks and Mrs. Harris were available for was advised that her duty services would not be needed 1972-1973 school year.
Discussion It is the contention of that since she classes petitioner same taught for the full classes which were year, what one teacher would nor- have she mally taught, satisfied the statute and should not be required that Thus, one teacher. identify she contends that the actual teaching assign- ment is the and not controlling factor how the District administratively accounted for the and substitute teachers.
It from the Harris, evidence that Mrs. had appears initially absence, leave year’s granted returned early was actually assigned to teaching However, duties the second semester. her status was that of substitute for yet another teacher who had been sick leave. granted Petitioner to this fact as points her that she supporting position, contending could not be classified as a substitute for a teacher who was not absent. view, however,
In our the evidence as to the method in employed making teaching assignments, of Mrs. including Harris’ particular handling to the assignment, correctness of the points trial court’s decision and inter- of the statute in pretation question.
At the it is clear beginning that both the District and peti- tioner that would substitute for Brooks for anticipated petitioner Wendy was assigned it is to infer that
one semester and reasonable petitioner It was also to be classes which Mrs. Brooks would have taught. anticipated at the end of Brooks would return and take over that semester Mrs. - the second semester of the courses. year-long for Mrs. executed the second contract When petitioner Harris it is reasonable to infer that would have been petitioner assigned classes taught. those which Mrs. Harris would have Further normally not at could this have petitioner point anticipated being beyond employed the end of the school year. District had assigned petitioner end of the first semester
If at the had been the classes petitioner Mrs. Brooks to and assigned different classes arisen, since must con- not have would controversy teaching, of two different teachers the classes would then have taught cede that she be. they might whoever was as- here. Instead was not followed latter procedure
The both Mrs. the same classes and with to continue signed through were, return, class assign- other given and Mrs. Harris on their Brooks ments. “Powers in part: Code section 939 pertinent
Education provides shall, district of each school Duties superintendent Superintendent. to or and duties granted imposed upon in addition other powers dis- board of the executive officer (a) governing Be the chief him: board, all ...(c) assign to the Subject governing trict. approval certification district requiring quali- employed positions employees fications, are to serve.” to the in which they *6 positions the of the well recognized
This statute provides prerogative tois to class That administrator control assignments. prerogative of be the best interests the students. exercised for continue with the same have petitioner The administrative decision to and after one semester her to another assignment classes rather than shift of a to the second half year-long different teacher then introduce complete in courses. The district to benefit the students those courses was calculated not be for that decision. should penalized cer which a teacher is teachers to classes for
“The of assignment A teacher the of the board. governing tificated is within discretion entirely v. Board (Matthews a or not tenure in class room.” does particular acquire 748, Education, 101].) 198 754 Cal.Rptr. [18 Cal.App.2d 41 Petitioner awas substitute teacher. “The substitute teacher is from to employed day to serve at the the school district in day option the absence of the (Wood City teacher.” v. Angeles Los School Dist., 6 644].) 402 Cal.App.2d P.2d [44 Education Code section it 13336 as read at time in the question pro-
vided; “Governing boards of school districts shall as substitute em- classify ployees those in persons employed certification positions requiring qualifi- cations, to fill positions regularly absent from service.” employed persons Dist., as
Finally City High was stated in Ham v. Los Angeles Sch. 773, at Cal.App.2d P.2d is wide page “There dis [169 646]: tinction between status of probationary on permanent employees the one hand and other; former, on as the employees indicates, classification have which positions their own from can they not removed for cause and after a except have no hearing; latter positions their own but occupy, temporarily, positions belonging pro or bationary permanent Furthermore, teachers. as a substitute teaching does not qualify become teacher.”
The District could have avoided any such as created problem the vacancies on a litigation by simply filling basis with day-to-day present substitute teachers. use of the various one semester contracts were of were of benefit benefit to again students. teachers a definite
Substitute and beneficial role in school adminis- play tration, but exist as an aid to they the school administration in preserving in teacher and make it necessary flexibility assignments for tenured possible sick teachers to avail themselves of and other beneficial of leaves of types absence, since, law, permanent teachers who are absent service from reasons, varying have the legally right return permissible occurs, to their When the school positions. inability of administra- tion terminate teachers substituted the absence could result be, districts, in overstaffing. The result would in especially smaller school that the administration would order to avoid resort to the overstaffing use of or day-to-day short-term substitutes to the detriment of the educa- tional process.
Since seeks use of an writ avail of by extraordinary herself the of a which changes statute a teacher into a provisions pro- law, teacher of by she had the burden of her bationary operation proving case.
We reject claim that because what she contends is a legis- of petitioner’s
42 teachers, unfair to is place for
lative trend toward rights expanded it substituting. she was teacher for which the burden on her the identify as trend the reverse the is just In fact in area legislative this particular which section 13337.3 in Education Code witness the enactment 1971 of ato year of for long-term employees for the hiring temporary up provides The statute which without status.2 probationary upon granting es the long relies serves under certain limited circumstances obliterate in so substitute teachers and tablished distinction between and ad by the traditional discretion exercised school impairs doing seriously ministrators. section construe liberally
We are Education Code 2 enjoined by its On the other statute with a view to effect and to objects justice. promote n hand, it in with the edu construing has been held that legislation dealing courts of welfare of the children cational must not lose the systems, sight v. (Knickerbocker which is the fundamental of such legislation purpose Dist., 289]). H. Sch. Redlands A liberal Cal.App.2d [122 P.2d. fair its construction a and reasonable to a statute to effect gives meaning but objectives does not a the of the act. of permit disregard plain provision clue records which provide any no hearing legislative We have discovered has Code section 13336.5 nor Education to the legislative interpretation instances of interpretation. appellate our research disclosed previous back- made the must be against of this statute Thus our interpretation ad- which school public scheme governs the legislative general ground into which an insight in this case provides the evidence and ministration that administration. day-to-day problems practical with are to be construed in accordance enactments Legislative “Notwithstanding provisions of Sec states: section 13337.3 2 Education Code 13336.5, 13337, may employ governing a district board of school and tions during a teacher, school not less than one semester complete year a but as a for school documents, may classify such and holding year, any person appropriate certification upon persons based employment of shall be employee. as such person temporary a or particular a semester employees the need for additional certificated year, or is semester granted leave for a or employee has been because a certificated illness, limited, persons employed, so experiencing long-term be number shall need, by governing to that as determined board. temporary employee a year as “Any employed complete one school position requiring certification shall, following in a reemployed if employee probationary as governing board qualifications, classified year’s be deemed temporary employee shall year’s employment as previous permanent status.” purposes acquiring probationary employee for employment as a aas It appears us Education Code. problems 13336.5 of the created section
43 used, not the if the words are ambiguous of ordinary meaning language etc. (Pac. do E. Co. v. Shasta Dam and not lead to an Gas & absurdity. Dist., Statutes, 841]; Cal.Jur.2d, 135 463 P.2d 45 Cal.App.2d [287 § 647; Caristo, City Fresno H. S. Dist. v. De P.2d p. [92 Cal.App.2d 668].)
Of course the words “one absent service” are not ambiguous from person clear, a have one A substitute definition is who ordinary meaning. fills a of a from position absent service. employee
The words “class or classes which would have on the taught” are surface unambiguous also have a clear and How- ordinary meaning. ever, as case, we see from what in this their not easy. is happened application instance, For class en- assignments depend variables such as upon many rollment and the teachers who qualifications thus it report duty, is difficult for the school administration to state advance the beginning of the school what classes would be specific to assigned specific teacher. For the same reasons it is difficult to assure that one teacher who commences a school will continue to teach the same classes throughout year. vacancies in administrative Unexpected can positions result in a teacher being removed from a classroom to administra- perform tive duties.
Thus assume for instance that teacher admittedly substituted for one teacher for one full year. This in class would uncertainty assignments per- mit the school administration to contend that the classes which the sub- stitute were taught not those which “would have been absent taught” teacher. We with agree that such would be unfair procedure the substitute since he or she be would unable such a contention. disprove vice the literal to control by
This to the language points permitting as the critical same assignments By on relying teaching requirement. be with the legislative token it out harmony purpose, appears District status to a sub- involuntarily grant probationary require teachers, filled the of two different regular stitute admittedly positions students, was, because assigned simply good be classes that would one normally taught by person.
In the first we the substitute would be “one example posed, replacing but “the class classes” might absent from service” not or teaching person that one have the case at bar taught “would In taught.” person (Mrs. Brooks) have but classes that one would person normally taught not was “absent from service” for the entire year. *9 the statute in and in we are of the that opinion In this context question . . class classes which “Who teaches . or would the phrase particular . absent from service . .” was intended one by person have taught a substitute teacher one and the replaces to the situation where apply for an entire school year regardless teacher same permanent particular Stated another the statute when way, only class assignments. applies duration, fills teacher a a one-year vacancy complement substitute not a does one teacher and the absence of created apply teachers of several which results from the being vacancy aggregate one-year absent for shorter periods. while administrative discretion
This preserves affording interpretation fair treatment of substitutes and thus achieves what we presume overall statute. objective at it different teachers
In the case bar was the absence of two physical made a full The fact that year. that petitioner’s employment possible was the entire did not alter year same classes for assigned petitioner that fact.
The is affirmed. judgment
Roth, J„P. concurred. FLEMING, J. In view as a I dissent. qualified probationary my petitioner one during under Education Code section 13336.5 by teaching employee school which have been one absent classes would taught by from service.
It is conceded (1) was classified as a employee; petitioner (2) teacher; (3) she she was the school district as taught employed by (6) the same (4) (5) classes with the in the same schoolroom same pupils one school To me it that the classes year. seems English petitioner plain and that were classes which would have taught been taught by person, them for one the statute by teaching under qualified as a probationary employee. used the school body-slot principle, purportedly weakness of the case, the facts of the
district, present examining self-evident on becomes calculations, was a sub- where, district’s to the school according Harris, teacher for Mrs. foreign language second term stitute Thus, although that term. and teaching during was present physically the same position in the starting lineup played petitioner appeared *10 entire the school throughout district game, maintains she remained substitute, one who Mrs. Brooks the first replaced half and re- during half, Mrs. Harris the second still a placed substitute even when Mrs. Harris team rejoined the second half. If play we accept logic, a school district through sagacious could shuffling personnel field a team of substitutes. do entirely I not comprised believe the Legislature intended the statute to so circumvented.
I would reverse the judgment. for a Court was denied Appellants’ petition hearing by Supreme 27, 1974. March