Each teacher employed by the board of directors of a school district shall be evaluated in writing under the Teacher Excellence and Support System, § 6-17-2801 et seq.
At a time other than an evaluation conducted under the Teacher Excellence and Support System, § 6-17-2801 et seq., if a superintendent or other school administrator charged with the supervision of a teacher believes or has reason to believe that the teacher is having difficulties or problems meeting the expectations of the school district or its administration and the administrator believes or has reason to believe that the problems could lead to termination or nonrenewal of contract, the superintendent or other school administrator shall:
In writing, bring the problems and difficulties to the attention of the teacher involved; and
Document the efforts that have been undertaken to assist the teacher to correct whatever appears to be the cause for potential termination or nonrenewal.
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment deleted former (b); redesignated the remaining subsection accordingly and subdivided it; and made related and minor stylistic changes.
The 2011 amendment substituted “under the Teacher Excellence and Support System, § 6-17-2801 et seq.” for “annually” in (a); and, in (b), substituted “At a time other than an evaluation conducted under the Teacher Excellence and Support System, if” for “When,” and “the superintendent or other school administrator” for “the administrator. ”
Case Notes
Compliance.
Substantial compliance with this section is all that is required. Murray v. Altheimer-Sherrill Pub. Sch., 294 Ark. 403, 743 S.W.2d 789 (1988); But see Lester v. Mount Vernon-Enola Sch. Dist., 323 Ark. 728, 917 S.W.2d 540 (1996); Caldwell v. Blytheville, Ark. Sch. Dist., 23 Ark. App. 159, 746 S.W.2d 381 (1988).
Nonrenewal of a counselor's employment contract violated the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of 1983, § 6-17-1501 et seq., because it was unreasonable to hold the counselor accountable for errors in a student handbook relating to graduation requirements, and there was no substantial compliance with the Act where the counselor was only evaluated once during his 14-year tenure at a school.
Bismarck Sch. Dist. v. Sims, 2012 Ark. App. 239, 406 S.W.3d 805 (2012).
Documentation.
This section contemplates, and fairness requires, that superintendents and other school administrators should not only bring problems and difficulties to the attention of the teacher in writing, but should also fully document the efforts undertaken to correct the problems. Murray v. Altheimer-Sherrill Pub. Sch., 294 Ark. 403, 743 S.W.2d 789 (1988).
Notice.
It was intended by the legislature that the teacher be apprised of any problems and permitted to respond. Where the teacher was not given prompt notice nor the opportunity to respond immediately to allegations against her, and her dismissal was based on these same complaints, the trial court was correct in finding that the board relied upon arbitrary and capricious reasons for nonrenewal. Leola Sch. Dist. v. McMahan, 289 Ark. 496, 712 S.W.2d 903 (1986) (decision under prior law).
Noncompliance with subsection (c) [now (b)] is some evidence that a dismissal was arbitrary and capricious, but does not necessarily compel that conclusion and is merely one among many circumstances to which a fact-finder must look in order to make a finding. Casada v. Booneville School Dist., 686 F. Supp. 730 (W.D. Ark. 1988) (decision under prior version of statutes).
Where teacher had written notice of his objectionable conduct which occurred in the school year, his dismissal was not in violation. Caldwell v. Blytheville, Ark. Sch. Dist., 23 Ark. App. 159, 746 S.W.2d 381 (1988) (decision under prior law).
In a case where a teacher alleged that a school district breached its contract with the teacher by violating the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act (TFDA) and that such breach entitled him to all the monetary benefits which he had under the 1999-2000 contract, plus interest and attorney's fees, because the district failed to provide written notice of the problems or evaluations as required by this section, the district failed to strictly comply with the statutory provisions of the TFDA and the teacher's contract was renewed by operation of law; however, the teacher's refusal to mitigate his damages limited his damages to the difference in what he earned under the 1999-2000 contract and what he could have earned had he accepted the offer of the district, but the teacher was entitled to reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to § 16-22-308. Sheets v. Dollarway Sch. Dist., 82 Ark. App. 539, 120 S.W.3d 119 (2003) (decision under prior law).
Violation.
In a case under the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, a superintendent and a school district failed to bring to a principal's attention the problems that were identified as reasons for termination and failed to document the efforts taken to assist the principal to correct the causes for potential termination. The principal was found to be a teacher because her contract required that she hold a teaching license.
Jasper Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Cooper, 2014 Ark. 390, 441 S.W.3d 11 (2014).
Cited:
Tyler v. Hot Springs School Dist., 827 F.2d 1227 (8th Cir. 1987).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2022 · leading case: Sheets v. Dollarway Sch. Dist., 120 S.W.3d 119 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003).
Sheets v. Dollarway Sch. Dist., 120 S.W.3d 119 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 18דArkansas Code Annotated section 6-17-1504 (Repl.1999) states: (a) Each teacher .”
McCaskill v. Fort Smith Pub. Sch. Dist., 921 S.W.2d 945 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 5דHe subsequently brought this suit against the school district, alleging the district had violated the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act by violating Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1504 (c) (Repl. 1994), which provides as follows: (c) Whenever a superintendent or other school administrator…”
Watson Chapel Sch. Dist. v. Russell, 241 S.W.3d 242 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 4דArk.Code Ann. § 6-17-1504 (Supp.2005). Appellant Watson Chapel School District ("the School District") hired Appellee Bernice Martin Russell for the position of Special Education Supervisor during the 2000-2001 school year and renewed her contract for the 2001-2002 school year.”
Nettleton Sch. Dist. v. Owens, 948 S.W.2d 94 (Ark. 1997). · cites it 2דOwens further contends that the district failed to engage in remedial or rehabilitative measures as mandated by § 6-17-1504(c). She also complains that the district did not strictly comply with § 6-17-1507(c), which requires that the superintendent send his notice of termination…”
Murray v. Altheimer-Sherrill Pub. Schs., 743 S.W.2d 789 (Ark. 1988). “Subsections (a) and (c) of § 6-17-1504 provide: Each teacher employed by the board of directors of a school district must be evaluated in writing annually.”
Casada v. Booneville Sch. Dist. No. 65, 686 F. Supp. 730 (W.D. Ark. 1988). · cites it 2דIn particular, plaintiff complains that he was not informed that past complaints had been made about him as required by Ark.Code Ann. § 6-17-1504(c). That provision states that if a school administrator “believes or has reason to believe the problems could lead to termination or…”
Metcalf v. Texarkana Sch. Dist., 986 S.W.2d 893 (Ark. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2דAppellants contended that the district did not strictly comply with Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1504 which provides that the district shall “document the efforts which have been undertaken to assist the teacher to correct whatever appears to be the cause for potential termination or…”
McGough v. Pine Bluff Sch. Dist., 85 S.W.3d 920 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2דOther statutes, such as Ark. Code Ann. §§ 6-17-1504 and 6-17-1507, do not mention suspension at all.”
Jackson v. Delta Special Sch. Dist. No. 2, 86 F.3d 1489 (8th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2דShe points to three things evidencing that her discharge was retaliatory: (1) the timing of the termination; (2) a comment made by Smead, retracted moments later, that Jackson's filing of the EEOC complaint was "not the sole reason" for her termination; and (3) Delta's failure…”
Bismarck Sch. Dist. v. Sims, 406 S.W.3d 805 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4דArk.Code Ann. § 6-17-1503(c). Each teacher employed by the board of directors of a school district must be evaluated in writing annually.”
Riley v. Vilonia Sch. Dist. (E.D. Ark. 2022). “If nonrenewal is based on a teacher’s failure to meet the school district’s expectations, the district must (1) bring the problems to the teacher in writing; and (2) document the district’s efforts to assist the teacher to correct the problems that may cause nonrenewal.”
Bismarck Sch. Dist. v. Sims, 406 S.W.3d 805 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012). “Ark.Code Ann. § 6-17-1503(c). Each teacher employed by the board of directors of a school district must be evaluated in writing annually.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1504(b) — 2 cases
Bismarck Sch. Dist. v. Sims, 406 S.W.3d 805 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012). “Ark.Code Ann. § 6-17-1503(c). Each teacher employed by the board of directors of a school district must be evaluated in writing annually.”
Riley v. Vilonia Sch. Dist. (E.D. Ark. 2022). “If nonrenewal is based on a teacher’s failure to meet the school district’s expectations, the district must (1) bring the problems to the teacher in writing; and (2) document the district’s efforts to assist the teacher to correct the problems that may cause nonrenewal.”
Nettleton Sch. Dist. v. Owens, 948 S.W.2d 94 (Ark. 1997). “Owens further contends that the district failed to engage in remedial or rehabilitative measures as mandated by § 6-17-1504(c). She also complains that the district did not strictly comply with § 6-17-1507(c), which requires that the superintendent send his notice of termination…”
McCaskill v. Fort Smith Pub. Sch. Dist., 921 S.W.2d 945 (Ark. 1996). “He subsequently brought this suit against the school district, alleging the district had violated the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act by violating Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1504 (c) (Repl. 1994), which provides as follows: (c) Whenever a superintendent or other school administrator…”
Casada v. Booneville Sch. Dist. No. 65, 686 F. Supp. 730 (W.D. Ark. 1988). “In particular, plaintiff complains that he was not informed that past complaints had been made about him as required by Ark.Code Ann. § 6-17-1504(c). That provision states that if a school administrator “believes or has reason to believe the problems could lead to termination or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.