Collins v. Wakonda Independent School District 1
252 N.W.2d 646
S.D.
1977
Check Treatment

*1 COLLINS, Respondent, Anna Mae INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

WAKONDA # 1 and the Board of Educa

DISTRICT

tion of Wakonda 1, Appellants. #

District

No. 11785.

Supreme Court South Dakota.

Argued Jan.

Decided *2 Goetz, Hirsch, J.

William Klimisch of Blackburn, Yankton, & appellants. Haar for Hagerty, Yankton, D. Richard for re- spondent.

PORTER, Justice. Dakota Continuing

The South Contract appellant required (school board) Law respondent (teacher) offer a contract for “ * * * year the 1975-1976 school un- der the same terms and conditions as the contract for the then current [teacher’s] year.”1 so, If the school board did and the contract, teacher refused the she has no statutory right employment continued in district. given, the school For the reasons infra, this case must be remanded so that judgment may be appellants, entered for the school board school district. teacher Respondent fourth continuously within district for years, eighteen including the 1974-75 school year. refused the new She contract for which offered employment 1975-76 as a eighth grades. teacher contract was The otherwise identical to her contract. 1974-75 purposes of the provide are to Law teachers secur Contract employment prevent and to dismissal ity in employ without cause.2 The of a teacher protected right to continued ment within the in employment school district Statutory opinion ensuing citations this refer to renew the for the contract May, as of this in effect when statutes year under the terms and condi- school same They controversy arose. do not reflect as the contract then current tions S.L.1975, changes pursuant chs. year. terms Different and conditions upon mutually agreed by the board and “Any who has been teacher any later at time.” any education of school district board of 13-43-10; 2. SDCL but see SDCL years least for at two successive in this state provides: writing by the board of be notified shall day or before the first on 13-43-12, “Nothing §§ 13-43-9 to inclu- year of the board’s determina- of the current sive, manner be construed as to renew tion not operation repealing limiting year, give ensuing and failure existing law with reference to dismissal on or before said date notice such written for cause.” of teachers part an offer on the shall constitute junior high school, teacher is teaching for which the 5-8 in an Moreover, offered qualified.3 middle approved school. demotion, must not be a

in the new contract of schoolsfor the dis- to the compared position held trict testified that the teacher’s transcript existing contract. Goodwin under from the University of credits of South *3 County High Bennett School Dakota indicated she has an academic back- District, S.D., (1975). 226 N.W.2d 166 School subject in all the ground areas normally Continuing Law the By the Contract eighth grades, not, however, legislature intend to did was, she in opinion, qualified and that his to specif a right a vested to grant the teacher eighth grade seventh or in the dis- specific a class level of stu ic school or to witness, The trict. teacher’s holder of a school, in the district.4 dents within in elementary doctorate education and in adapt must be The school board able placement of charge and certification of curriculum, enrollment, changes in elementary and secondary school teachers money, other circumstances deter and School of Education of the at the Universi- mining re-employment which the Dakota, ty of disagreed. South He testified The given to be board is such background a teacher her academic 13-8-1, authority by administrative SDCL qualified to beyond was not the sixth 13-8-39, 13-10-2.5 and Taking all seventh and eighth Respondent teacher the contends state, teachers in the it grade was his opin- teaching position for which offered her a larger percentage a would have ion second- and thus did not not backgrounds ary education and the smaller the comply Law. Contract percentage elementary majors education [as 1919, The teacher here was born in is mar- respondent He does did admit teacher]. ried, and received a bachelor of science de- elementary that some his education ma- gree University from the presently teaching jors were in the seventh eighteen 1966. South She grade, although they did not se- after credit hours work earned positions through placement cure those his 1975, question, May, 1966. At time in office. she held “Teacher Certificate” issued a legislature 12,1971 by has determined that Department March of Public may teachers be state, employed not expiration with an to teach a Instruction of 1, level for which are July they certified, date 1976. The certificate was grades elementary K-8 in an teach any valid but class organized 7-9 in formally their level within certificate.6 legisla- Trustees, Cal.App.2d 3. Mitchell v. 5 SDCL 13-8-39: 64, 397, (1935). provided by law, 400 42 P.2d and “As limited general charge, school board shall have rection, di- County High Bennett In- Goodwin v. School management of the schools of District, S.D., dependent 226 School N.W.2d * * district Netwig Huntington (1975); v. Union 166 Beach amendment, S.L.1975, to the 1975 Prior ch. 529, High Cal.App.3d 52 128, 71, provided: § SDCL 13-10-2 (1975); Cal.Rptr. rel. State ex State “Any school board shall have the Montoya, N.M. Board of Education * * * * * * teachers, employ v. Board of 386 P.2d Matthews personnel necessary by other deemed Diego, Cal.App.2d of San Education of board, duties and to define the and fix the Cal.Rptr. compensation of each.” 13-8-1: 6.SDCL 13-42-1 body person creat- “The school board is an elected “No shall be allowed to teach or according public ed to the laws of the state to serve administer schools of this governing wages public board of a district for as the nor draw state school- maintaining, teacher, organizing, principal, superintendent purpose who valid, locating providing unexpired and for education- schools not have a does certificate opportunities superintendent public all al and services for citizens the state issued authorizing residing person within district.” instruction and said eighth grade teach seventh but throughout make uniform is to tive academically “qualified” to do so.8 The back- also minimum academic state agreed of schools re- level of for each required ground twelve, qualified. teacher was The teach- delegate spondent and to to an through grade expert single witness did not out re- agency authority er’s state appropriate unqualified; teacher as rather the legis- spondent will.7 The legislative implement testified that all elementary educa- believe, witness lature, intended majors degree with a accepted by bachelor’s were could be tion certificate value, e., academically qualified beyond to teach proof i. at face although an grade, “certificated” unstated number sixth (5) Every annually register in the school or field for administer teacher shall teach or employed or elected.” county superintendent he was with the schools; *4 statutory following citations are reflec- 7. The purpose. legislative tive of that provided: SDCL 13-42-3 empowered board of education is 8. The state to shall have of education state board “The requirements promulgate and standards for prescribe authority determine and to full require- 13-42-3. SDCL Those certification. requirements different for and standards found in the Administrative ments are Rules authorizing the holder types of certificates (1974) [hereinafter for South ARSD]. or administer in certain thereof ARSD 24:02:03:02: and specified or fields. The duration schools preparation. of academic Teachers’ “Level reinstatement of renewal or the method shall show holder’s academic certificates training regula- rules and and other certificates said necessary as follows: for the administra- tions deemed tion pre- certification and of teacher by by shall be determined law scribed state board (4) degree,’ the teacher holds a ‘Bachelor’s of education.” degree college from an accredited bachelor’s provided: SDCL 13-42-4 university, completed ap- and or authority certifi- to issue teachers’ “The elementary secondary proved program in or superintendent pub- in the cates is vested from an accredited or uni- instruction, certificates shall be who and such lic versity; persons have met the issued to such requirements for said certifi- standards cates as education.” 24:02:03:25: ARSD by the state board of determined teaching validity certificate en- “Level Teacher certificates will show dorsements. provided: SDCL 13-43-5 following levels the holder in which of sign allowed to a con- shall be “A teacher may teach: only upon exhibition of a certificate tract subjects grades valid to teach contemplated under the said contract. school (2) Elementary program school with a of kin- qualify such as to a must be A certificate through grade eight operated dergarten with- in order for the cer- for accreditation school tificate to be registered town, incorporated of an or in in the limits certificate be valid. Such shall through formally grades nine in a or- seven in the office high ganized junior or in five having supervision over the school of schools district or districts.” eight approved through in an middle school. SDCL SDCL the time about which of shall be filed in the retained be issued which a teacher remain valid whether stood “The contract “The employment, the 13-43-6 [******] as following by specified signed in forming covering office of the clerk and the teacher. payment without renewal.” provided: holds a certificate shall conditions shall be under- therein or not: a duplicate wages per part thereof; specify shall period of Such contract begin, every the date at and one such contract month, years which will the other the term copy over or ARSD 24:03:01:01: And see Rptr. Education of School valid South signed to (80) rized all adopted by the state P.2d projects, grades, or school ‘Teacher, such certificate in accordance with by District, Wheeler v. School District # N.Y.S.2d standards, teach, 209 Dakota teacher certificate as- qualified,’ a teacher supervise, (1975); Cal.App.2d Van Heusen v. Board of rules and board; Adelt v. Richmond or administer ” system regulations 26 A.D.2d holding 20, Colo., 58 Cal. autho- a court expert wit- determines whether there is substan- doing so. The were support essence, legisla- with the tial evidence the board decision.11 disagreed ness, in a teacher with which authorizes policy tive That must review the circuit respondent’s in this judgment court with those case same seventh in mind principles than under the [rather appealed the teacher Respondent erroneous” “clearly standard —SDCL 15—6— circuit court under decision 52(a)]12 was settled Mortweet Ethan ap- 13^46-6 allows 13-46-1. SDCL County, S.D., Davison which trial de novo after a pellant “[T]he (1976).13 Our review con judgment final enter such court illegal board did not act vinces us every right the circumstances order issue of ly. On the whether * * This may require the case position for which she was offered would seem to direct anew statute board, qualified, for the reasons we court, com- the matter were if circuit supra, accept could properly have given, settled, It is now originally. there menced 1971 certification as substantial evidence court evi- however, that the circuit hears sufficient its conclusion she solely for under SDCL dence new determining whether the school given no evidence There was illegal.9 decision was unqualified new because of might since tend occurrences court, the circuit The issue before *5 impeach her The testimony certification.14 novo, de is not whether the the on of teacher’s expert witness went course, wisest nor was the decision board only weight of the evidence to sup to the preponderates in fa the evidence whether decision, port the as did the fact board that board decision. Instead the cir of the vor had before always the teacher may so it takes evidence that court cuit grade. fourth (1) the board possessed whether determine February, 1975 power, by consti In the board notified administrative re- [executive] statute, spondent that her or to exercise discretion in would tution decision, (2) required by All steps and if so whether not be renewed. the making the unreasonably, exercised Contract Law were thereafter discretion was resulting in arbitrarily, manifestly taken, a board decision in April abused.10 renew her weighing ap- evidence the circuit 1975 not to contract. She the Without Education, of Davi v. Ethan Board 9. Mortweet board administrative decision had not been County, S.D., (1976). son 241 N.W.2d Although by construed this court. we are Mortweet, recognize to follow is bound it Education, v. su Mortweet Ethan 10. guided for the trial court to be indeed difficult Ging pra. v. of Compare ex rel. Board State precedent entry by until after of Duluth, 550, of of Education Minn. judgment. the court circuit N.W.2d contrary means relevant appear. University Substantial evidence such would Her 14.The competent mind evidence as a reasonable transcript South indicated accept adequate might a conclu- seven credit hours earned at least after Co., Phillips Application Ed. & Sons sion. her 1971 teacher certificate. issuance of 86 S.D. N.W.2d legislature specific provision made 1-26-1(8). see SDCL suspension or revocation of the certificate for McLaughlin cause. v. 12. Schneider public S.D., “The instruction 241 N.W.2d suspend (1976) the to revoke or not hold otherwise because the have does that the issue was not was careful to note court class or kind for (sic) presented raised. [pre- would have cause which issue, plain its violation con- vented] this heard the circuit note case was 13. We tract, gross immorality, incompetency, or fla- July At that time SDCL 13- court duty.” grant neglect of applied to de a school novo] 46-6 [trial days to the court and few cated circuit pealed the cause remanded so that judg- the board offered her the contract to later ment be entered accordingly. We need DUNN, J., and the C. decide whether board decision ZASTROW and MOR- GAN, JJ., circuit concur. by July court in 1975] [reversed valid, the teacher’s refusal since WOLLMAN, J., dissents. accept subsequently the contract offered WOLLMAN, Justice (dissenting). re-employment rights terminated assigned by district. The reasons In v. Mortweet Ethan Board of April hearing at the for non-renewal S.D., board we held the fourth contract as shown in de novo trial required by SDCL record, were not inconsistent with permits its an independent inquiry that the teacher was decision into facts the trial court for the grades.15 higher There was no passing on the legality of the the offer was made to force the evidence Surely board’s decision. independent such resign.16 Because we find the inquiry into the facts encompass must an offer implied authority decision to the new contract on the part of the trial evidence, supported by substantial the fact court to determine the credibility of wit- the new contract was offered process nesses in the of deciding whether not, appeal was taken will without after board’s decision was arbitrary or more, arbitrary.17 capricious make the decision or based on an abuse discre- tion, for if it does then appeal de judicial On review of a school novo under SDCL 13^46-6 is reality carrying of discretion in exercise board’s nothing more than an appeal record, on function, a lawful administrative out record effect being reconstitut- presume must decision one court live ed before the trial court. good upon faith. The burden made independent trial court made an in- presump to overcome this party-opponent quiry into the facts in the instant case and McLaughlin Indepen Schneider tion. *6 concluded that board had abused its District, S.D., 241 N.W.2d 574 dent School and that its discretion action was unreason- determined, a matter (1976). We have able, arbitrary capricious. If we are law, regard that the was entitled to board independent not render the inquiry pro- teacher’s certification as substantial evi totally meaningless, cedure must accord qualification of her for the dence findings. deference court’s so, being That under Mort- review, judicial record, weet standard of evi As I read the there nois substan- will that the conclusion dence tial evidence that school board offered faith, in bad unreason illegally, respondent acted the new contract in order to ably, through abuse arbitrarily, changes enrollment, accommodate class- judgment funds, is therefore va- size or discretion. room or for any spent grade position. enth six to six and one-half 15.Mrs. Collins Thus it was daily grade her fourth class. hours unreasonable offer her the parental subsequent April complaints which became available board acted because Moreover, supportive, negative poli- it was consistent with a but she was not cy reassigning graders. teachers within the some of her fourth When possible, against continuing grade, where best utilize staff on decided her in fourth vacancy eighth grade hand. had not yet Superintendent occurred. The good County High Mrs. 16. See board considered Collins overall Goodwin v. Bennett School, Trustees, supra; Mitchell v. teacher. Since would be with seventh and Board eighth graders supra. not with students over daily, one or two hours the board could reason- ably Dyke believe that difficulties in fourth Cf. Van problem likely Ill.App.2d would be a new sev- 254 N.E.2d 76 might legitimately have and should not be held to immunize other reason transferring respondent from liability having from board failed to warranted junior respondent’s renew continuing level to the elementary school good Rather, without it is clear that cause. high level. of schools recommended I judgment would affirm the in all re- offered the new con spects. that such a move would hope tract in refusal litigation over the board’s

forestall original respondent’s contract. renew a reasonable exercise of the was not

This teachers, reassign Good

board’s High County win v. Bennett S.D., ool

Sch