Opinion
No. 84-849
Decided June 6, 1984.
Schools — Minimum school year requirements — Mandamus to compel waiver of one day of instruction — R.C. 3313.48 — Writ allowed, when.
IN MANDAMUS.
This action in mandamus was brought by the Cleveland Board of Education to compel respondent, the State Board of Education of Ohio and its superintendent, Dr. Franklin B. Walter, to waive one day of required instruction in the Cleveland Public School System for the 1983-1984 school year.
On January 11, 1984 and January 12, 1984, members of the Unity Unions employed by the Cleveland Board of Education engaged in a work stoppage. These were primarily custodial employees whose duties included operating the boilers in the schools and other maintenance functions. On the days in question, the temperature in Cleveland ranged from 5° F to 18° F. Considering the lack of personnel to operate the heating systems and maintain the buildings, relator's superintendent closed the schools for those two days.
As a result of the closing of school on these two days, the Cleveland Public Schools will have been open for instruction one day less than required by R.C. 3313.48 if the regularly scheduled school year is not extended. The make-up day of instruction is currently scheduled for June 19, 1984, which relator alleges will cost $750,000.
Relator initially sought a waiver of two days of instruction from respondent which was denied. Relator's request for an adjudication hearing pursuant to R.C. 119.07 and 119.09 was granted. A hearing was held and on May 24, 1984, the state superintendent issued his final order denying the requested waiver.
On May 25, 1984, this action in mandamus was filed seeking the issuance of a writ to compel respondent to waive the one day of instruction.
It is conceded that relator has available an appeal to the court of common pleas from its R.C. Chapter 119 appeal. However, in view of the fact that this dispute concerns whether the schools will be open on June 19, 1984, it would be impossible for relator to obtain the relief requested through that appeal process.
Mr. Thomas C. Simiele and Mr. Michael L. Gordon, for relator.
Mr. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Mr. Gary E. Brown, for respondents.
The sole issue presented is whether relator is entitled to the waiver of one day of required instruction as requested. The waiver of the minimum school year requirements is governed by R.C. 3317.01(B) which provides in relevant part:
"* * * This requirement shall be waived by the superintendent of public instruction if it had been necessary for a school to be closed because of disease epidemic, hazardous weather conditions, damage to a school building, or other temporary circumstances due to utility failure rendering the school building unfit for school use, * * *."
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that relator is entitled to the waiver of one day of instruction due to "other temporary circumstances due to utility failure rendering the school building unfit for school use" under R.C. 3317.01(B). We note first that no argument was made nor evidence presented to suggest that relator's superintendent acted imprudently in closing the schools. The utilities were inoperable, creating a genuine concern for the welfare of the students if classes were held. We sympathize with respondent's concern that too lenient enforcement of minimum school year requirements will erode the protections they afford to Ohio's public school students. However, the purpose of the minimum school year is to provide guidelines to insure that public schools offer quality education. We cannot conclude that one day of instruction will improve the quality of education offered in the Cleveland Public Schools this year, particularly when the one day will cost relator $750,000.
In so holding, we expressly reject relator's contention that the reason for the utility failure is irrelevant in determining whether a waiver is appropriate under R.C. 3317.01(B). We find simply that the reasons for the utility failure herein do not justify requiring relator to schedule a make-up day of instruction at a cost of $750,000. This expenditure can only adversely affect relator's students in the long run, with no practical benefit in return.
Accordingly, the writ is allowed.
Writ allowed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN 9