Opinion
No. 80-778
Decided June 3, 1981.
Schools — Teachers — Continuing contract — Eligibility — Professional certificate — Necessity.
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
Thomas S. Peet, appellant herein, was employed by the Westerville City School District Board of Education (board) for the 1975-1976 school year, under a one-year limited contract, to teach vocational auto mechanics. At that time he held provisional certificates in vocational training and in high school social studies. He was reemployed between 1976 and 1978 under a two-year limited contract.
On April 24, 1978, Peet was given an unqualified two-year limited contract. By that date, he had filed a professional certificate for high school social studies with the board. The certificate became effective July 1, 1978. He was to be employed in vocational auto mechanics under the contract.
On December 20, 1978, Peet filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County seeking, inter alia, a writ of mandamus to compel the board to issue him a continuing contract. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court sustained Peet's motion, granting the writ.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Peet did not qualify for a continuing contract status because his professional certification was not in vocational training and because his professional certificate was not effective until July 1, 1978, more than two months following the date on which the contract was entered into.
The Court of Appeals, finding its judgment to be in conflict with a number of other Court of Appeals' decisions, certified the record of the case to this court for review and final determination.
The decisions cited by the court as being in conflict are Krolopp v. Bd. of Edn. (Mahoning co. 1974), 47 Ohio App.2d 208; Rorabaugh v. Bd. of Edn. (Ashtabula Co., June 26, 1978), case No. 933, unreported; and State, ex rel. Haskins, v. Bd. of Edn. (Ross Co., July 20, 1974), case No. 595, unreported.
Green, Schiavoni, Murphy, Haines Sgambati Co., L.P.A., and Mr. Frederick G. Cloppert, Jr., for appellant.
Means, Bichimer, Burkholder Baker Co., L.P.A., and Mr. John C. Burkholder, for appellee.
R.C. 3319.11 states in part:
"Teachers eligible for continuing service status in any school district shall be those teachers qualified as to certification, who within the last five years have taught for at least three years in the district * * *."
R.C. 3319.08 stated, at the time applicable herein:
"Contracts for the employment of teachers shall be of two types, limited contracts and continuing contracts. * * * A continuing contract is a contract which shall remain in effect until the teacher resigns, elects to retire, or is retired pursuant to section 3307.37 of the Revised Code or until it is terminated or suspended and shall be granted only to teachers holding professional, permanent, or life certificates. * * *"
In State, ex rel. Voss, v. Bd. of Edn. (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 274, this court held that a teacher is eligible, pursuant to R.C. 3319.11, to a continuing contract if he has taught for three of the last five years in the district and holds a professional, permanent or life certificate in any area of teaching. Ordinarily, if such a teacher is issued an unconditional limited contract he is entitled to a writ of mandamus. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that appellant's professional certificate in an area other than vocational training did not qualify him for a continuing contract.
The Court of Appeals also held that appellant was not eligible for a continuing contract because his professional certificate was not valid on April 24, 1978, the date on which the contract was entered into. The contract's effective date, however, was appellant's first work date for the 1978-1979 school year. That date was subsequent to the effective date of the professional certificate. We must determine whether a teacher may be eligible for continuing contract status if his professional certificate becomes effective subsequent to the time a contract is entered into, but prior to the starting date of that contract.
In enacting R.C. Chapter 3319, the General Assembly required boards of education to decide whether to issue continuing contracts to qualified teachers after three years of observing their teaching abilities. This requirement is designed to provide stability to the teaching process by giving qualified teachers job security.
In order for the system to function properly, it is necessary that continuing contracts only be issued to competent teachers. The General Assembly provided for an objective measure of competency by establishing the certification process. In order to obtain a professional or permanent certificate a person must meet "the standards of preparation, experience, and teaching success set by the * * * [State Board of Education]." R.C. 3319.25 and 3319.26.
If a professional certificate is effective prior to the starting date of a contract, the competency of that teacher has been approved for that school year. Consequently, a teacher is eligible for a continuing contract pursuant to R.C. 3319.11 if he has taught for three of the past five years in the school district and if he holds a professional, permanent or life certificate in any area of teaching, which certificate is effective by the starting date of any contract to be issued. If a board has issued an unconditional limited contract to such a teacher, that teacher is ordinarily entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the issuance of a continuing contract.
There being no reason to deny appellant the requested relief, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the writ is allowed.
Judgment reversed and writ allowed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, P. BROWN, LOCHER and C. BROWN, JJ., concur.
CORRIGAN and HOLMES, JJ., concur on the basis of the concurring opinion of HOLMES, J., in State, ex rel. Voss, v. Bd. of Edn. (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 274, 279.
CORRIGAN, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for SWEENEY, J.