Thomas v. Newark City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 71 Ohio St.3d 251.]

THOMAS, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE NEWARK CITY

SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE.

[Cite as Thomas v. Newark City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1994-Ohio-18.]

Schools—Teachers—Evaluation of teachers under limited contract—Evaluator

complies with R.C. 3319.111(B)(3), when.

(No. 93-256—Submitted November 2, 1994—Decided December 20, 1994.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Licking County, No. 92-CA-53.

__________________

{¶ 1} Appellee, Newark City School District Board of Education, employed

appellant Richard Thomas as a high school English teacher under a written limited

contract for the 1990-1991 school year. On November 16, 1990, Larry Roberts,

the assistant principal for the Newark City School District, observed Thomas during

one of Thomas' classes. Roberts also observed Thomas while teaching a different

class on November 27, 1990.

{¶ 2} Following these two observations, Roberts and Thomas each

completed a performance checklist. The performance checklists listed the abilities

and characteristics essential to effective teaching, listed the strengths and

weaknesses of Thomas as a teacher, and outlined goals for the remaining portion of

the school year. On his performance checklist, Roberts indicated that Thomas

needed to make some improvements, which included the following: "exhibit

greater facility with content and facts," have "higher expectations for students," and

"provide sufficient relevant activities to fill allotted class time." Roberts also

indicated on the checklist that Thomas assigned students "seatwork" to

"compensate for poor planning." On December 3, 1990, both Roberts and Thomas

signed each performance checklist.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 3} Roberts next completed a written evaluation of Thomas. This initial

evaluation described in detail Roberts' November 16 and November 27

observations of Thomas. The evaluation also stated:

"In review I would like for you to address the following problems:

"1. Construct more detailed lesson plans which include topics to be taught,

objectives for the day, and any homework assigned.

"2. Spend time each day teaching techniques of Mystery and College

Writing.

"3. Assign some of the work now being done in class as homework so you

have time to cover the topics during class.

"4. Review the college writing and mystery curriculum in the graded course

of study, availabel [sic] course outlines, and in discussion with your department

chairman."

{¶ 4} On December 10, 1990, Roberts met with Thomas and discussed the

evaluation, which Roberts and Thomas signed.

{¶ 5} Roberts again observed Thomas during one of Thomas' classes on

March 1, 1991 and on March 11, 1991. Based upon these observations, Roberts

completed a second evaluation of Thomas. This second evaluation discussed the

two classes that Roberts had observed and then stated:

"In the performance checklist that I gave you in December, I indicated

several concerns. I also made several specific suggestions in the [first evaluation]

at the same time. I do not feel that you have made enough improvement for me to

recommend that your contract be renewed." On March 15, 1991, Roberts met with

Thomas and discussed this second evaluation, which Roberts and Thomas signed.

{¶ 6} Based on Thomas' evaluations, Leslie Johnson, the superintendent of

Newark City Schools, recommended that the board not renew Thomas' limited

teaching contract. On April 8, 1991, the board gave notice that it intended not to

renew Thomas' limited contract. On April 12, 1991, Thomas received notice from

2

January Term, 1994

the interim treasurer of the board that the board had not renewed his contract. After

the board provided Thomas with a hearing, the board held a special meeting on

June 5, 1991 and adopted a resolution affirming its intention not to reemploy

Thomas.

{¶ 7} Asserting statutory and contract violations, Thomas appealed the

board's decision to the common pleas court. Finding that the board had complied

with the statutory requirements concerning the nonrenewal of Thomas' limited

contract, the trial court dismissed Thomas' complaint and entered judgment in favor

of the board.

{¶ 8} Thomas filed an appeal with the court of appeals, asserting that the

trial court had erred in dismissing his complaint, because the board had failed to

comply with the evaluation procedures set forth in R.C. 3319.111. The court of

appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Concluding that R.C.

3319.11(G)(7)1 limited its review to determining whether the board had complied

with the procedural requirements expressly listed under 3319.111(A),2 the court of

1. The version of R.C. 3319.11(G)(7) that applies in this case provided, in pertinent part:

"A teacher may appeal an order affirming the intention of the board not to re-employ the

teacher to the court of common pleas *** on the grounds that the board has not complied with the

provisions of section 3319.11 or 3319.111 of the Revised Code.

"*** [T]he court in an appeal under this division is limited to the determination of

procedural errors and to ordering the correction of procedural errors and shall have no jurisdiction

to order a board to re-employ a teacher, except that the court may order a board to re-employ a

teacher *** when the court determines that evaluation procedures have not been complied with

pursuant to division (A) of section 3319.111 of the Revised Code ***. Otherwise, the determination

whether to re-employ or not re-employ a teacher is solely a board's determination and not a proper

subject of judicial review and, except as provided in this division, no decision of a board whether to

re-employ or not re-employ a teacher shall be invalidated by the court on any basis ***."

Am.Sub.H.B. No. 330, 142 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3356, 3362.

2. The version of R.C. 3319.111(A) that applies to this case stated, in pertinent part:

"Any board of education that has entered into any limited contract or extended limited

contract with a teacher pursuant to section 3319.11 of the Revised Code *** shall evaluate such a

teacher in compliance with the requirements of this section in any school year in which the board

may wish to declare its intention not to re-employ him ***.

"This evaluation shall be conducted at least twice in the school year in which the board

may wish to declare its intention not to re-employ the teacher. One evaluation shall be conducted

and completed not later than the first day of February and the teacher being evaluated shall receive

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

appeals refused to determine whether the evaluations of Thomas met the

requirements of R.C. 3319.111(B).

{¶ 9} The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a motion to

certify the record.

__________________

Cloppert, Portman, Sauter, Lataznik & Foley and Susan Kozlowski, for

appellant.

Baker & Hostetler, Ronald G. Linville and Ellen J. Garling for appellee.

Means, Bichimer, Burkholder & Baker Co., L.P.A., Kimball H. Carey,

urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio School Boards Association.

__________________

WRIGHT, J.

{¶ 10} Richard Thomas argues that the trial court should have ordered the

board to reinstate him with back pay, because the written evaluations of Thomas

failed to comply with R.C. 3319.111(B)(3). That division provides:

"(B) Any board of education evaluating a teacher pursuant to this section

shall adopt evaluation procedures that shall be applied each time a teacher is

evaluated pursuant to this section. These evaluation procedures shall include, but

not be limited to:

"***

"(3) A written report of the results of the evaluation that includes specific

recommendations regarding any improvements needed in the performance of the

teacher being evaluated and regarding the means by which the teacher may obtain

assistance in making such improvements."

a written report of the results of this evaluation not later than the tenth day of February. One

evaluation shall be conducted and completed between the first day of March and the first day of

April and the teacher being evaluated shall receive a written report of the results of this evaluation

not later than the tenth day of April." Am.Sub.S.B. No. 140, 143 Ohio Laws, Part I, 718, 807.

4

January Term, 1994

{¶ 11} Since the court of appeals entered its judgment in this case, this court

has held that "the failure of a board of education to satisfy the requirements of R.C.

3319.111(B)(3) constitutes a failure to comply with the evaluation requirements of

R.C. 3319.111(A), and such failure will permit a reviewing court to order the board

to reemploy the teacher pursuant to R.C. 3319.11(G)(7)."3 Naylor v. Cardinal

Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 162, 166, 630 N.E.2d 725,

729. See Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Edn. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 156, 630

N.E.2d 721, paragraph two of syllabus (stating that a "proper evaluation under ***

R.C. 3319.111[A] contains all the elements delineated in R.C. 3319.111[B]"). See,

also, Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Edn. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 1203, 1208, 638

N.E.2d 79, 82. Thus, the only remaining issue in this case is whether the

evaluations of Thomas complied with the requirements under R.C. 3319.111(B)(3).

{¶ 12} We find that the evaluations of Thomas met the requirements set

forth in R.C. 3319.111(B)(3).

{¶ 13} The first evaluation of Thomas, dated December 10, 1990, clearly

met the requirements of R.C. 3319.111(B)(3). That evaluation contained the

following specific recommendations regarding improvements needed in Thomas'

performance as a teacher: (1) "[c]onstruct more detailed lesson plans which include

topics to be taught, objectives for the day, and any homework assigned"; (2)

"[s]pend time each day teaching techniques of Mystery and College Writing"; and

(3) "[a]ssign some of the work now being done in class as homework so you have

time to cover the topics during class." The first evaluation also contained the

following specific recommendations regarding the means by which Thomas could

obtain assistance in making the needed improvements: (1) "[r]eview the college

writing and mystery curriculum in the graded course of study"; (2) review

3. Since the trial court entered its judgment in this case, R.C. 3319.11(G)(7) and 3319.111(A) have

been amended. However, those amendments do not affect the holdings in Naylor and Farmer or

the analysis in this case.

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

"availabel [sic] course outlines"; and (3) have a "discussion with your department

chairman."

{¶ 14} The second evaluation of Thomas, dated March 15, 1991, also met

the requirements of R.C. 3319.111(B)(3). The key paragraph in the second

evaluation states, "In the performance checklist that I gave you in December, I

indicated several concerns. I also made several specific suggestions in the [first

evaluation] at the same time. I do not feel that you have made enough improvement

for me to recommend that your contract be renewed." This paragraph expressly

incorporated by reference the specific recommendations regarding Thomas' needed

improvements and the means by which Thomas could obtain assistance in making

those improvements that were listed in the performance checklist and the first

evaluation, both of which Thomas had signed. It is clear that Roberts' previous

concerns and suggestions regarding Thomas' teaching performance were still at

issue in Roberts' second evaluation of Thomas.

{¶ 15} We believe that an evaluator complies with R.C. 3319.111(B)(3)

when he incorporates by reference the statutorily mandated recommendations listed

in earlier written reports that the teacher who is being evaluated has seen. Any

other interpretation of R.C. 3319.111(B)(3) would be unreasonable, would serve no

useful purpose, and would infringe unjustifiably upon a board of education's

decision not to renew a teacher's contract. Although R.C. 3319.11 and 3319.111

must be construed liberally in favor of teachers because they are remedial statutes,

a court may not read into a statute a result that the language does not reasonably

imply. See Szekely v. Young (1963), 174 Ohio St. 213, 22 O.O.2d 214, 188 N.E.2d

424, paragraph two of the syllabus.

{¶ 16} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of

appeals, albeit for different reasons.

Judgment affirmed.

6

January Term, 1994

MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ.,

concur

DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment only.

__________________

7