reversing mandamus court’s relief because “the county superintendent’s rating of [teacher] as unsatisfactory was within his power and discretion, and was amply and legally justified” but further criticizing the mandamus court where its intrusion “would create scholastic and financial chaos”
How later courts described this case
- reversing mandamus court’s relief because “the county superintendent’s rating of [teacher] as unsatisfactory was within his power and discretion, and was amply and legally justified” but further criticizing the mandamus court where its intrusion “would create scholastic and financial chaos”
- Commenting on the purpose of an educational probation period, the Court stated that "... a wise and fair appraisal of performance ... can best be made after the ... entire probationary period has ended ...” and therefore a decision on permanency can be made within a reasonable amount of time after the end of the probationary period.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*338 Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Musmanno:
It is not clear how the appellant in this case could receive satisfactory ratings for three terms and then at the fourth term be given an unsatisfactory rating which covered all four terms. The rating for the fourth term could not possibly retroact to the previous three terms. If the teacher’s work was unsatisfactory for the fourth term and that of itself disqualified her for the permanent position, the decision of the county superintendent would be understandable and acceptable, but it does not comport with logic to say that the fourth term unsatisfactory rating rendered the previous three satisfactory terms unsatisfactory. ■
A baseball batter may strike out in the last inning, but this does not wipe out the runs he knocked in during the previous innings.
It would appear to me that Dorothy S. Travis, the school teacher in this - case, was lulled into a sense of false security -by the first three approval ratings. She could not have been competent and satisfactory for eighteen months and then become so incompetent as to vitiate even what went before. In accordance with all standards of fairness, a duty devolved upon the school authorities to instruct the teacher on her failings in the first, second and third terms, if any there were, and that duty was not met by waiting until the end of her provisional incumbency when opportunity to correct deficiencies no longer existed.
I would reverse the judgment n.o.v. and affirm the order of the lower court issuing mandamus to the county superintendent to rerate the plaintiff for the last four months of her two year contract.