Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout91-3295 CivilD. JANE BAIR, THEODORE LEHMAN, ANDREW NORTON, CAROL ZOOK and MARY RHOADS, Petitioners V. CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent IN THE COURT OF COM CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 3295 CIVIL 1991 BEFORE BAYLEY* and OLER, JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2 i t� day of November, 1992, consideration of Petitioners' Petition for Review a Answer, the briefs submitted thereon, and the rec Petition is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Thomas W. Scott, Esq. J. Paul Helvy, Esq. KILLIAN & GEPHART 218 Pine Street P.O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Counsel for the Petitioners James D. Flower, Esq. 11 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Respondent :rc * Judge Bayley did not participate in this decisi PLEAS OF SYLVANIA upon careful ad Respondent's 3, Petitioners' r=im J. D. JANE BAIR, THEODORE IN THE COURT OF COM LEHMAN, ANDREW NORTON, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, CAROL ZOOK and MARY RHOADS, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Petitioners V. CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, : Respondent NO. 3295 CIVIL 1991 IN RE: PETITIONERS' PETITION FOR REVI PLEAS OF SYLVANIA BEFORE BAYLEY' and OLER, JJ. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT At issue in the present case is a Petition for Review of the suspensions of D. Jane Bair, Theodore Lehman, Andreu Norton, Carol Zook and Mary Rhoads (Petitioners) from their teaching positions with the Carlisle Area School District (Responde t). For the reasons set forth in the following Opinion, Petitioners' request for reinstatement is denied. At the end of the 1990-91 school year, approxi: three positions were eliminated in the Carlisle District.2 Consequently, ten teachers were suspeni the five Petitioners in this case.' These teach notices on June 7, 1991, informing them that Directors of the Carlisle Area School District at June 20 will vote to suspend you effective Jun 1 Judge Bayley did not participate in this dec 2 Transcript of School Board Hearings, July 2. (hereinafter N.T. ). ' N.T. 15. N.T. 18; Respondent's Exhibits B1 -B10. tely twenty - Area School i, including s were sent the Board of is meeting on 30, 1991."' ision. �, 1991, at 14 No. 3295 Civil 1991 Attached to each of these notices was a form by whi h the teachers could request a hearing with respect to their suspen 3ions.5Of the ten teachers who were sent these notices, Petitioners requested a hearing." On June 20, 1991, the Board of Directors of thE Carlisle Area School District officially approved the suspension of the ten teachers.' Subsequently, Petitioners were sent letters confirming their suspensions, as well as informing them of the date set for the hearing that they had requested.' The hearing before the School Board was held on July 24, 1991. During this hearing, Gerald L. Fowler, the assistant superintendent of the Carlisle Area School District,' testified about the student enrollment in the District, as well as the circumsta ces leading to Petitioners' suspensions. More specifically, Mr. Fowler testified that thE total student enrollment for the 1981-82 school year was 5,550 students." Subsequently, the enrollment for the 1985-86 school ear was 5,255 students, and for the 1990-91 school year, 5 N.T. 19; Respondent's Exhibits B1 -B10. " N.T. 19. ' N.T. 19; Respondent's Exhibit A. e N.T. 19; Respondent's Exhibits C1-05. 9 N.T. 8. io N.T. 9. 2 were 5,059 No. 3295 Civil 1991 students enrolled in the School District." Mr. FoAer stated that this represented a decline in enrollment of 491 students over a ten-year period, a decline of approximately nine p rcent.12 With respect to this figure, Mr. Fowler testified that G ades 9 through 12 experienced a decline of 385 students during this ten-year period. 13 Moreover, Mr. Fowler indicated that the School District was expecting a further decline in enrollment: the projected enrollment for the 1991-92 school year was 4,999 students." Mr. Fowler further testified that, in 1981-E2, there were 194.87 full time equivalents (hereinafter FTE's)15 employed at the Secondary Education level of the School District.16 The number of Secondary FTE's increased to 196.34 in the 1986-87 s hool year, and in 1990-91, there were 189.74 FTE's employed in the School District. 17 With respect to the suspensions of the four English teachers, 11 I d . 12 N.T. 10. 13 N.T. 24. 14 N.T. 11. 15 In computing full time equivalents, the S hool District assigns a weight of one to each full time position. N.T. 20. 16 N.T. 23. For purposes of Mr. Fowler's testimony, the District's Secondary Education encompasses Grades 6 through 12. id. 17 N.T. 23. 3 No. 3295 Civil 1991 Mr. Fowler testified that the number of students a rolled in the English Department decreased from 1,811 in 1986-87 to 1,472 in 1990-91, a decline of 339 students.18 Additionally, Mr. Fowler testified that the School District was projecting ten fewer students in the English Department for the 1991-92 school year, thus producing a total decline of 349 students enrolled in the Department." In addition to providing testimony regarding tie decrease in pupil enrollment, Mr. Fowler discussed the sizes of the Secondary English classes during the period from 1986-87 u til 1990-91.20 Mr. Fowler testified that during the 1986-87 and 990-91 school years, there were fifteen English classes exceedi g twenty-five students.21 Additionally, even when taking Petitioners' suspensions into account, Mr. Fowler stated that there would be only five English classes containing over twent -six students during the 1991-92 school year.22 In addition to suspending four teachers in the English Department, the School Board also assigned one addit'onal class per 1B N.T. 28. 19 N.T. 49. 20 N.T. 63-65. 21 N.T. 63. 22 id. 0 No. 3295 Civil 1991 day to each of the fifteen remaining English tea hers.23 With respect to the effects of these additional classes upon the teacher -student ratios, Mr. Fowler testified that, during the 1986- 87 school year, "the number of students that a teac a given week ranged from roughly 71 to 105 ...." further testified that during the 1990-91 school yea at the Senior High School saw approximately 60 to S week.25 After the reduction of the teaching staff Department, the School Board expected that the teachers would see approximately 71 to 96 students pe the 1991-92 school year.26 Mr. Fowler also testified that instead of additional class to each of the remaining English School Board could have maintained the prior teachi of four classes per day by adding students to saw during Mr. Fowler , the teachers students per the English ning English week, during assigning an teachers, the assignments h of these classes.27 Under such a redistribution of students, "[c]lass sizes would go up roughly to 24 or 25 students- ... [w ich would be within the framework of 100 students [per teacher] .28 23 N.T. 57-63. 24 N.T. 63. 25 N.T. 64. 28 id. 27 N.T. 67. 28 id. 5 No. 3295 Civil 1991 Mr. Fowler then testified about a memorandu sent by Dr. Stowell, the District Superintendent, to the Board f Directors on April 1, 1991.29 This memorandum provided BuggeStiOILS to the Board as to what actions could be taken to balance the School District budget for the 1991-92 school year .30 One of these -suggestions was the suspension of four Secondary English teachers a d the increase in the number of classes for the fifteen remaining teachers." Moreover, this memorandum indicated that "[a] four period day could be reinstated with a sharp increase in class size and the retention of one teaching position. ,32 The memorandum also suggested that positions could be eliminated in the Secondary Math, Foreign Language and Art Departments ; 33 these suggestions referred to a decline in pupil enrollment.34 Mr. Fowler also presented testimony concerni g the factors leading to the suspension of Petitioner Norton Erom Secondary mathematics .35 For the 1990-91 school year, th re were 1,506 29 N.T. 67-68; Petitioners' Exhibit 2. 30 N.T. 68-70. 31 Petitioners' Exhibit 2, Paragraph 6. 32 I d . 33 N.T. 70-71; Petitioners' Exhibit 2, Paragri 34 id. 35 N.T. 78-82. 2 �phs 7, 12, 14. No. 3295 Civil 1991 requests by the students for mathematics classes.3' For the 1991- 92 year, the School Board anticipated 1,412 requests a decrease of 96 requests .31 Moreover, in 1986-87, the average class size for Secondary Mathematics was 23.1 students, and in 1990-91 the average class size was 21.5 students. Mr. Fowler's testi onv tended to show that, with the suspension of Petitioner Norto , the average class size for 1991-92 would remain approximately the same as that of the previous year: 21.7 students.3e On August 22, 1991, the Carlisle Area School Board issued its decision affirming the suspensions of Petitioners and setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law.39 In its findings of fact, the School Board found that, over a ten-year period, "from the school year of 1981/82 to 1990/91, there was a t tal decline in enrollment of 491 pupils, a 9% decline. ,41 The School Board further found that "[the enrollment figures for the 1991/92 school year show an additional decline of 60 pupils f om last year, 36 N.T. 78-79. 37 N. T. 79. 39 N. T. 81. 39 petitioners' Amended Petition, Paragraph Answer, Paragraph 7; Exhibit to Petitioners' Ame 00 Petitioners' Amended Petition, Paragraph Answer, Paragraph 7; Exhibit to Petitioners' Amer 2. 7 Respondent's Petition. ; Respondent's d Petition, at No. 3295 Civil 1991 1990/91."41 Additionally, in its conclusions of law, the School Board concluded that there had "been a substantial decrease in pupil enrollment in the Carlisle Area School District over the past ten years," and this decline was expected to continue into the 1991-92 school year.42 Furthermore, since Petitio ers were the least senior in their certification, and since they did not have any other certification which would give them seniority over the remaining staff, the Board concluded that the su pensions were proper. 43 Petitioners have filed the present Petitior for Review, contending that there has not been a substantial decline in pupil enrollment in the Carlisle Area School District.44 Petitioners further contend that the "real reason Respondent chose to furlough [Petitioners] was the fact that it wished to change the teaching assignments for English teachers from 4 to 5 classes per day. ii45 Additionally, Petitioner Norton contends that "[i]n order to furlough [him] in 1991-92, it is incumbent upon the District to show a further decline in enrollment since the time f [his] first 41 id. 42 id. 43 Petitioners' Amended Petition, Paragraph 7 Respondent's Answer, Paragraph 7; Petitioners' Exhibit to Petiti ners' Amended Petition, at 2-3. 44 Petitioners' Amended Petition, Paragraphs 11-17. 45 Petitioners' Amended Petition, Paragraph 19 8 No. 3295 Civil 1991 furlough and rehire [for the 1990-91 sc of year] . 1946 Consequently, Petitioners contend that the Schc of Board had insufficient legal cause to suspend them.47 It has been noted that a court's "scope of review [of a School District decision] is limited to a determination of whether the School District abused its discretion, committed an error of law, or violated the employees' constitutional rights, and whether the School District's findings of fact are supported y substantial evidence." Mongelluzzo v. School District of Bethel Park, 93 Pa. Commw. 557, 559, 503 A.2d 63, 65 (1985) .48 Under this standard of review, the Court must affirm the School Distr'ct's decision unless it finds one of the following factors in therecord: (1) an abuse of the School Board's discretion; (2) an erroneous interpretation of law by the School Board; (3) an infringement upon the constitutional rights of the employees of the School District; or (4) a lack of substantial evidence in the record supporting the School Board's decision. For the reasons set forth hereafter, we are unable to find the existence of any of these factors and we therefore cannot disturb the School Board's decision to suspend 46 Petitioners' Amended Petition, Paragraph 12. 47 Petitioners' Amended Petition, Paragraph 16. 48 This standard of review is also set forth in Section 754(b) of the Local Agency Law, Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, No. 53, §5, 2 Pa. C.S. S754(b) (1992 Supp.); see Sto-Rox Sohool District v. Horgan, 68 Pa. Commw. 416, 449 A.2d 796 (1982). 01� No. 3295 Civil 1991 Petitioners. Section 1124 of the Public School Code state that, "[a]ny board of school directors may suspend the neces ary number of professional employees, for any of the causes hereinafter enumerated: (1) Substantial decrease in pupil enrollment in the school district ....i49 The reasons set forth in Section 1124 are "the exclIusive basis on which a suspension of a professional employee may De made.... A suspension by any other basis is invalid." Hix on v. Greater Latrobe School District, 52 Pa. Commw. 92, 95, 421 A.2d 474, 476 (1980). "[T]here is not and cannot be a precise defin'tion" of what constitutes a substantial decrease in pupil enrollment for purposes of Section 1124. Phillipi v. School District cf Springfield Township, 28 Pa. Commw. 185, 190, 367 A.2d 1133, 1137 (1977). "This is an area in which school boards must exerc'se discretion and board action will not be disturbed absent a sho ing that such discretion was abused, or that the action was arbitkary, based on a misconception of law or ignorance of facts." Idl. (citations 49 Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, §1124, as X11-1124 (1992). 10 fended, 24 P.S. No. 3295 Civil 1991 omitted) .50 Upon examination of the record, we cannot say a matter of law that the Carlisle Area School Board abused its discretion in suspending Petitioners. Moreover, the record contains substantial evidence supporting the School Board's determine ion that the School District experienced a substantial decline In enrollment. Mr. Fowler testified that, over a ten-year period, the number of students enrolled in the School District decreased by 491, a decline of approximately nine percent.51 Mr. Fowler also testified that this number was expected to decline in 991-92 by an additional 60 students.52 In light of this decline, we cannot say that the School Board abused its discretion in dete mining that a substantial decrease in student enrollment was invo ved. Additionally, Petitioners contend that the "real reason the Respondent chose to furlough [them] was the fact that it wished to change the teaching assignments for English teac ers ... [b]y 50 See Andresky v. West Allegheny Sch. Dist., 63 Pa. Commw. 222, 437 A.2d 1075 (1981) (holding that an eleven percent decline in enrollment over a five year period is substantial); See Tressler v. Upper Dublin Sch. Dist., 30 Pa. Commw. 171, 373 A.2d 755 (1977) (holding that a decline of 250 students in a three year period can be a substantial decline in enrollment); Smith v. Board of Sch. Directors of Harmony Area Sch. Dist., 16 Pa. Commw. 175, 328 A.2d 883 (1974) (holding that a decrease from 724 to 610 students in a ten year period constitutes a substantial decline justifying suspension of two or three teachers). 51 N.T. 10. 52 N. T. 13. 11 No. 3295 Civil 1991 increasing the teaching load of the remaining teFLchers by ... twenty percent ....i53 In so doing, "the District was able to furlough twenty percent of its ... teachers," while the number of students taking English classes remained the same."' Although the suspensions of Petitioners may have resulted in larger teacher -student ratios for the remaining teachers in the School District's Secondary English Department, we are unable to conclude that this fact renders the School Board's decision an abuse of discretion. "No precedent holds that a school board abuses its discretion when fewer teachers result in in increase in pupil -teacher ratios." Bednar v. Butler Area Sch. Dist., 15 D. & C.3d 555, 560 (Butler Co. 1979), aff'd, 48 Pa. Commw. 586, 410 A.2d 922 (1980). Petitioners also contend that, since the School Board's suspension of them was motivated by economic factord, this action was "contrary to law. i55 In making this contentiorl, Petitioners rely upon the memorandum sent to the -School 11oard by the Superintendent.56 Since the Superintendent's reconmendations for the elimination of several other positions were expressly premised upon a decline in pupil enrollment, Petitioners aver that the lack 53 Petitioners' Amended Petition, Paragraph 18. 54 _Td. 55 petitioners' Brief, at 11. 56 N.T. 67-68; Petitioners' Exhibit 2. 12 No. 3295 Civil 1991 of this express language with respect to the elimination of the four English teachers suggests that these eliminations were based upon economic considerations.57 "It is not improper for the school authorities to have taken into consideration or, indeed, to have been motivated by, considerations of economy as long as the grounds established by the Code are present." Bednar v. Butler Area Sch. Dist. 48 Pa. Commw. 586, 587, 410 A.2d 922, 922 (1980). Moreover, Ln determining whether to suspend professional employees, "[b]udgetary considerations are permissible factors in the decisi nal process so long as a school board is actually faced with a substantial decline in enrollment." Swabb v. Erie Bd. of Education, 16 D. & C.3d 115, 118 (Erie Co. 1980). Finally, with respect to the suspension of Pet' ioner Norton, Petitioners contend that, in order to effectuate such a suspension, "it is incumbent upon the District to show a furt er decline in enrollment since the time of Petitioner Norton's first furlough and rehire [during the 1990-91 school year] .1058 When faced with a substantial decline in enrollment warranting a reduction in its teaching staff, a School District "has absolute authority to suspend its extra employees ... rega dless of the 57 N.T. 70-71; Petitioners' Exhibit 2, Paragrz 14; Petitioners' Brief at 9-12. 58 petitioners' Amended Petition, Paragraph 12 13 phs 6, 7, 12, No. 3295 Civil 1991 enrollment in particular programs." Arnold v. Bc and of School Directors, Sch. Dist. of Pittsburgh, 131 P.L.J. 434, 435 (1982). "It is implicit in the statutory scheme [of Section 124] that the School District has such discretion." Mongellu zo v. School District of Bethel Park, 93 Pa. Commw. 557, 561, 5 3 A.2d 63, 66 (1985). As long as the School District can establ sh one of the bases set forth in Section 1124, it "must have the f exibility ... to decide where personnel cuts should occur with due regard to the overall educational program." Id. at 561, 503 A.2d at 66. Since there is substantial evidence in the rec rd to support the School Board's findings that the School District experienced a decline in pupil enrollment, the School Board is to be accorded flexibility in deciding which positions should be el minated while maintaining the integrity of the educational program of the School District. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this .Z`f4 day of November, 1992, consideration of Petitioners' Petition for Review an( Answer, the briefs submitted thereon, and the record, Petition is DENIED. BY THE COURT, 14 upon careful Respondent's Petitioners' J. No. 3295 Civil 1991 Thomas W. Scott, Esq. J. Paul Helvy, Esq. KILLIAN & GEPHART 218 Pine Street P.O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Counsel for the Petitioners James D. Flower, Esq. 11 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Respondent :rc 15