Contract Adherence
School boards maintain the authority to offer teachers a contract. Contracts in general incorporate a teacher’s salary, insurance information, sick pay, and grievance measures and may differ from district to district (Phelps & Gale, 2003). A teacher’s employment contract is a legally binding agreement between the school board and the teacher. The law of contracts is relevant to contracts between teachers and school districts (Phelps & Gale, 2003). The law of contracts incorporates the notions of offer, acceptance, mutual agreement, and consideration (Phelps & Gale, 2003). A myriad of statutes necessitate school board approval of a teacher’s contract even if tiered leadership offers a teacher a job. Therefore, the contract is not definitive pending the school district endorsement of the contract (Phelps & Gale, 2003).
School districts are confronted with sustaining highly qualified teachers while encountering changes in teacher availability (White, 2004; “No Child Left,” 2005). Consequently, highly qualified teachers in essential areas, such as special education, are frequently capable of bargaining compensation packages that in turn prompt competition between school districts (Gold, 1999).
The following treatise will address the scenario: After signing a contract, a special education teacher has submitted a resignation 3 weeks prior to the start of the school year. The teacher has been offered a position in another district, closer to his/her home that offers a better compensation package. Due to the teacher shortage in special education, there are no qualified applicants available to fill the abandoned position. This response is written from the perspective of the governing school board and will include whether or not the school board should release this teacher, reasoning for decision, the course of action the school board recommends, and stakeholder involvement in the decision. In addition, case law examples will support the view of the governing school board.
Breach of Contract
According to the Texas Education Code 21.105, 21.160, and 21.210, (1995) teachers may relinquish a teaching position and leave employment of the school district without penalty if the teacher does so at least 45 days before the start of the next school year. However, in any other time frame the teacher will need the consent of the school board in order to relinquish his or her contract (TEC, 1995). The State Board for Educator Certification may impose sanctions against the teacher if the school district complains regarding the teachers actions. Sanctions may be imposed upon a teacher who resigns and fails without good case to comply according to his or her contract or fails to perform the contract (Texas Education Code, 1995). The preceding applies to teachers who maintain a probationary contract, a continuing contract, and a term contract (Phelps & Gale, 2003). The teacher in this case maintains a breach of contract with the school district because the school district is counting on the teacher to be in the classroom-teaching students. Many contracts include stipulations recommending the amount of damages a teacher must pay if he or she terminates employment before the end of the contract (Phelps & Gale, 2003).
Since there is an increase in the battle to attract qualified teachers, districts are becoming firm regarding teachers honoring one’s contract (Archer, 2000; Krikorian, 2006). Nationwide, schools are making clear that teachers who breach his or her contract might meet severe consequences (Archer, 2000, Krikorian, 2006). In a multitude of states, there are statutes allowing school districts to report grievances to the State Board for Educator Certification to inquire about license revocation against teachers who breach a contract. The maximum penalty a state can inflict is frequently a one-year revocation (Archer, 2000). Although, the number of teachers whose licenses have been revoked remains relatively small across the country, even after school districts made a point of letting teachers know of the consequences (Archer, 2000).
Teachers should not accept a contract with another employer unless his or her current employer gives a written release from a contract. School boards, at their discretion, may release a teacher from a contract (VBE, 2003). This should be done under the terms of good cause. Good caused is determined by the school board but should replicate a contemplation of all the issue that has an affect on both the teacher and the school board such as reason for leaving, terms of the contract, and the consequences of the teacher leaving on the teacher and school district (VBE, 2003). If release from a contract is not granted, and the teacher breaches the contract, the school board may pursue solutions set by the Board of Education or other solutions consistent with law or Contract (VBE, 2003).
Granting a release from a contract for a teacher is usually the best option as opposed to enforcing the contract (ISB, 2004). Enforcing the contract may not be in the best interest of the students or the district if a teacher does not want to be there (ISB, 2004). A district has the option of granting a release or a conditional release. Granting a release is frequently the best option when a teacher needs to leave for personal reasons. If the teacher is asking for a release because he or she has a job offer, the district may choose to permit a conditional release only if an appropriate substitute is found. The school board is within its rights to decline a release to a teacher and enforce the contract (ISB, 2004). However, even if the school board chooses to enforce the contract the teacher may opt to not stay in the district and may choose to initiate legal action. The school board may report the teacher to the BOEE whom in turn will decide whether to necessitate restrictions or penalties against the teacher for violating professional ethics (ISB, 2004).
Decision Regarding Contract and Recommended Course of Action
The school board understands that accepting the resignation of a teacher is usually a professional courtesy; however, the school board cannot overlook the fact that there remains a teacher shortage in special education, and there are no qualified applicants available to fill the vacant position (Archer, 2000). Consequently, the school board recommends that the teacher in this case be granted the request to be relinquished of his or her contract upon the employment of a replacement special education teacher for the school. The school board deems that if this request was made due to a unique hardship or situation, as opposed to personal preference, the decision might be different. Nonetheless, the school board maintains a contract with the teacher in this case and essentially, the school needs to have a teacher in the classroom at the beginning of the school year (Archer, 2000). Moreover, failure to comply with the legislative requirements of NCLB puts the educational organization in an unexpected position with a highly qualified teacher (“No Child Left,” 2005; Moores, 2005).
Stakeholders
The stakeholders of the school district are significant in this decision, not necessarily the opinions of the stakeholders but purely by the existence of the stakeholders. The school board does not want to be unjust to teachers, but at the same time the welfare of the school, teachers, administrators, students and taxpayers are of interest as well. All deserve to have a certain level of quality in the classroom, and this school board intends to see that happens (Archer, 2000). The school district can encounter problems since a teacher resigning will require the school district to search for an alternate to cover the immediate needs of the classroom (Anonymous, 2006). In addition, teachers leaving a teaching position can adversely have an effect on students who will need to adapt to a new teacher (Anonymous, 2006).
Releasing the teacher from the employment contract may place the special education students in jeopardy of not receiving a fair and equitable education. Children with special needs are protected by federal and state legislation (Moores, 2005; Essex, 2005). Federal legislation mandates that all students with disabilities be provided a fair and equitable education (Moores, 2005).
Case Law Examples
In a contract between a teacher and the school board, there is little detail in terms of agreement and significant uncertainty about considerations of what one party owes to the other. This lack of information in the teaching contract has led to continual conflict between teachers and the school board (Lemley, 2001). A contract is the initial statement for formulating the rights, duties, and responsibilities of the teacher. The United States Supreme Court stated in Perry v. Sindermann, 92 S. Ct. 2694 (1972), that a written contract with a precise stipulation is clear evidence of a teacher’s right but that the lack of a precise stipulation may not exclude a claim of entitlement, circumstances not formalized in writing, may be implied (Lemley, 2001). Rules and regulations become part of a teacher’s contract and the school board maintains the right to enforce them, United TCHRS., etc. v. Oakland Unified School district, 142 Cal. Rptr.105 (1977) (Lemley, 2001).
There are few case law examples specifically pertaining to a school board versus late resignation of a teacher. On example is The Harlan v. Eastern Allamakee case resulting in litigation (IASB, 2004). School districts are enforcing contracts in an attempt to retain teachers (Archer, 2000). The Sweetwater County School District No. 2 in Green River, Wyoming sued a teacher who accepted a teaching position, signed a contract then resigned three months later (Boria, 2002) The school district is asked for damages and court fees in the case. The school board stated that if the teacher had tendered his or her resignation sooner the board might have accepted; however, the teacher in this case waited until August to resign (Boria, 2002). The school board refused the teacher’s resignation and cited that it will be tough to fill the teaching position. The teacher in this case denies the breach of contract and disputes the damages the school district alleges. The damages will cover costs of advertising, personnel, and other costs to fill the vacant teaching position (Boria, 2002).
Conclusion
As school districts are challenged with human resources concerns, understanding the legal aspects of due process and employment law offer a basis for decisions (Essex, 2005). When school boards take action against a teacher’s breach of contract, an important message is being sent regarding the legally binding contract between teacher and school board. School boards need to make difficult decisions regarding teachers and contracts in view of the fact that a teacher whose license is revoked results in one less teacher in the workforce (Archer, 2000).
References
Anonymous (2006, November 28). Teacher contract issue needs illumination [Letter to the editor]. The Nashua Telegraph. Retrieved November 29, 2006 from http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061128/OPINION01/61128011/-1/opinion
Archer, J. (2000). Teachers warned against breaching contracts. Education Week, 20(15). Retrieved December 2, 2006 from EBSCOhost database.
Boria, R.R. (2002). Wyoming district sues teacher who quit after signing on. Education Week, 21 (39). Retrieved December 1, 2006 from ProQuest database.
Essex, N. L. (2005). School law and the public schools: A practical guide for educational leaders (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gold, C. M. (1999). After the offer, before the deal: Negotiating a first academic job.Acadme, 85(1). Retrieved November 29, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Iowa Association of School Boards (2004). Employment issues service: late teacher resignation. Retrieved November 27, 2006 from http://www.ia-sb.org/EmpIssues/Late_Teacher_Resignation.pdf
Krikorian, T. (2006) Quitting could cost teachers: Arizona board eyes tougher stance for breaking contracts. Knight Rider Tribune Business News. Retrieved November 29, 2006, from ProQuest database.
Lemley, C.R. (2001). Implied contractual duties: The teacher’s dilemma. Retrieved December 1, 2006 from ProQuest database.
Moores, D. F. (2005). The no child left behind and the individuals with disabilities acts:The uneven impact of partially funded federal mandates in education of deaf and hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 150(2). Retrieved August 19, 2005, from EBSCOhost database.
No Child Left Behind. (2005). Retrieved August 28, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing/jhtml?src=pb#
Phelps, S & Gale, T. (2003). Encyclopedia of Everyday Law: Teachers’ Rights. (2006). Retrieved November 26, 2006 from http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/teachers-rights#teacher-contracts
Texas Education Code (1995). Texas Statutes Education Code. Retrieved November 29, 2006 from http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/edtoc.html
Virginia Board of Education (2003). Regulations governing the employment of professional personnel. Retrieved November 27, 2006 from http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/newvdoe/reggovempprofpersonnel.pdf
White, R. (2004). The recruitment of paraeducators into the special education profession: A review of progress, select evaluation outcomes, and new incentives. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4). Retrieved November 29, 2006, from ProQuest database.
