Ark. Code Ann. § 6-17-1506 (2026)

Case Notes

Construction.

In certain cases prior to 1989, substantial compliance with the notice requirements sufficed; however, since 1989, there must be strict compliance with this subchapter and particularly with this section before a nonrenewal, termination, or suspension may be put into effect. Western Grove Sch. Dist. v. Terry, 318 Ark. 316, 885 S.W.2d 300 (1994) (decision under prior law before 2001 amendment of § 6-17-1503).

Applicability.

Party who was employed by the district and required by the terms of her contract to be certified, was covered by this subchapter. Love v. Smackover Sch. Dist., 322 Ark. 1, 907 S.W.2d 136 (1995).

Discrimination.

For cases discussing racial discrimination with respect to nonrenewals under prior similar law, see: McBeth v. Board of Education, 300 F. Supp. 1270 (E.D. Ark. 1969); Cato v. Collins, 394 F. Supp. 629 (E.D. Ark. 1975), aff'd, 539 F.2d 656 (8th Cir. 1976) (preceding decisions under prior law).

Nature of Interest.

The provisions of the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act governing nonrenewal of a teacher's contract do not create a constitutionally protected property interest. Hilton v. Pine Bluff Pub. Sch., 796 F.2d 230 (8th Cir. 1986).

Where the teachers, whose contracts were not renewed, did not receive notice of the nonrenewal by the May 1st deadline, and their school district was annexed by another, which assumed their school district's contractual duties, their claim was founded upon nonrenewal, even though their complaint used the phrase “termination”; therefore, the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act created no property interest giving rise to a constitutional claim and dismissal was proper. Hilton v. Pine Bluff Pub. Sch., 796 F.2d 230 (8th Cir. 1986).

Nonrenewal of Contracts.

Teacher was entitled to rely upon the declaration in reduction in force policy that contract nonrenewal determinations would be governed by application of the point system, which by definition took into account such teacher's on-the-job performance. Murray v. Altheimer-Sherrill Pub. Sch., 294 Ark. 403, 743 S.W.2d 789 (1988).

The actions of the school board, including the altered contract for the upcoming school year, constituted a nonrenewal by the board without prior notice to the teacher/coach and was void under this subchapter; further, the teacher/coach was entitled to have a contract for the upcoming school year on the same terms and for the same salary as the current contract. Western Grove Sch. Dist. v. Terry, 318 Ark. 316, 885 S.W.2d 300 (1994).

The defendant school district's actions constituted a nonrenewal of the plaintiff teacher's contract, and thus required compliance with the notice provisions of this section, where (1) the teacher's 1997-1998 contract contained a coaching supplement and indicated his position as coach for the district, and (2) the teacher's 1998-1999 contract removed the coaching supplement, completely eliminated his coaching duties, and reassigned him to the district's alternative school in an administrative position. Manila Sch. Dist. No. 15 v. White, 338 Ark. 195, 992 S.W.2d 125 (1999).

Where a teacher signs a superseding contract, he or she cannot contest the nonrenewal of the original contract at a time past the limitation period of the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. Metcalf v. Texarkana Sch. Dist., 66 Ark. App. 70, 986 S.W.2d 893 (1999).

Pursuant to § 6-17-1503 and subdivision (b)(2)(B) of this section, school district's decision not to renew principal's contract did not violate Teacher Fair Dismissal Act because the school district was not required to have a reduction-in-force policy in place and the consideration of future school reorganization was not improper. Olsen v. E. End Sch. Dist., 84 Ark. App. 439, 143 S.W.3d 576 (2004).

Circuit court did not err in granting a teacher injunctive relief and enjoining a school district from denying the teacher a hearing or refusing to renew his contract until his rights were adjudicated in the hearing because the teacher was entitled to the provision of the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, § 6-17-1509, that afforded him a hearing; nothing in the Act indicates that a teacher is not employed unless he or she has a written contract, and the requirement of the Act, found in subsection (a) of this section, that a teacher's contract must be renewed in writing refers to an original “contract” but does not specify that it be a written contract. Fayetteville Pub. Schs v. Dial, 2010 Ark. App. 296 (2010).

Notice.

Teacher held not to have received adequate notice of nonrenewal. Wabbaseka School Dist. v. Johnson, 225 Ark. 982, 286 S.W.2d 841 (1956); Newton v. Calhoun County Sch. Dist., 232 Ark. 943, 341 S.W.2d 30 (1960); Green Forest Pub. Sch. v. Herrington, 287 Ark. 43, 696 S.W.2d 714 (1985) (preceding decisions under prior law).

Teacher who was not notified of nonrenewal in accordance with this section was entitled to reinstatement and salary for following year. Newton v. Calhoun County Sch. Dist., 232 Ark. 943, 341 S.W.2d 30 (1960) (decision under prior law).

Subject to certain exceptions, a school district must give written notice to a teacher of its intent not to renew a teaching contract on the same terms and conditions as the immediately preceding teaching contract between the parties. Gillespie v. Board of Educ., 528 F. Supp. 433 (E.D. Ark. 1981), aff'd, 692 F.2d 529 (8th Cir. 1982) (decision under prior law).

Substantial compliance with the notice requirement for nonrenewal of a school teacher's contract is sufficient, absent a showing that prejudice resulted from a want of strict compliance. Gillespie v. Board of Educ., 528 F. Supp. 433 (E.D. Ark. 1981), aff'd, 692 F.2d 529 (8th Cir. 1982); Lee v. Big Flat Pub. Sch., 280 Ark. 377, 658 S.W.2d 389 (1983) (preceding decisions under prior law).

Notice of nonrenewal on same terms held adequate. Gillespie v. Board of Educ., 528 F. Supp. 433 (E.D. Ark. 1981), aff'd, 692 F.2d 529 (8th Cir. 1982) (decision under prior law).

This section contemplates that notice be accorded before the school board's decision on the superintendent's recommendation not to renew a nonprobationary teacher's contract. Murray v. Altheimer-Sherrill Pub. Sch., 294 Ark. 403, 743 S.W.2d 789 (1988).

When teachers do not receive notice of recommended nonrenewal by May 1, their contracts with the district are automatically renewed for the upcoming school year, and the district, as a district to which new territory has been annexed, is bound to honor these contracts pursuant to § 6-13-220 (repealed). Hilton v. Pine Bluff Pub. Sch., 295 Ark. 397, 748 S.W.2d 648 (1988).

The notice of proposed nonrenewal must be given to a teacher before the school board's decision to renew. Western Grove Sch. Dist. v. Terry, 318 Ark. 316, 885 S.W.2d 300 (1994).

Where plaintiff teacher, presented with reassignment of duties or nonrenewal of contract, elected to sign contract which reassigned his coaching duties and reduced his salary, that contract superseded the prior contract and relieved defendant of complying with the notice requirements of this section. McCaskill v. Fort Smith Pub. Sch. Dist., 324 Ark. 488, 921 S.W.2d 945 (1996).

Receipt of a resignation by the superintendent satisfies the requirement of delivery under this section and constitutes strict compliance under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. Higginbotham v. Junction City Sch. Dist., 332 Ark. 556, 966 S.W.2d 877 (1998), overruled in part, Williams v. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 347 Ark. 637, 66 S.W.3d 590 (2002) (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 § 6-17-1504 of the TFDA, 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).

In order for a reviewing court to make a determination regarding the adequacy of notice given, it must examine not only the notice of nonrenewal, but also any record of the school-board hearing made pursuant to the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, § 6-17-1501 et seq. Thus, in a case where a teacher alleged that she was not given adequate notice of the nonrenewal of her contract the trial court erred by determining the issue without considering what actually occurred at a hearing on the matter before a school board to see if the teacher was able to prepare a defense. Watson Chapel Sch. Dist. v. Russell, 367 Ark. 443, 241 S.W.3d 242 (2006).

District court did not err in dismissing the teacher's cause against the school district where the school district complied with the provisions of subdivision (b)(2)(B) of this section such that a reasonable teacher could prepare a defense; the teacher was able to defend on all issues raised. Russell v. Watson Chapel Sch. Dist., 2009 Ark. 79, 313 S.W.3d 1 (2009).

Remedies.

Although § 6-17-1510 describes the administrative hearing process in §§ 6-17-1509 and 6-17-1510 as the “exclusive remedy” for any nonprobationary teacher aggrieved by a board decision, this procedure presupposes a proper notice of a nonrenewal recommendation by the superintendent to the teacher so that the teacher may request a hearing before board action. Western Grove Sch. Dist. v. Terry, 318 Ark. 316, 885 S.W.2d 300 (1994).

Resignation.

Under § 6-13-620, the sole power to execute and to terminate a teacher's contract is vested in a school district's board of education; obviously, the legislature was mindful of that rule when it passed this section, which provides for the resignation to be delivered to the school board. Teague v. Walnut Ridge Sch., 315 Ark. 424, 868 S.W.2d 56 (1993).

This section does not require the board to take any official action in response to a teacher's resignation; had the legislature intended to require a school board to officially accept a teacher's resignation, it could have so provided. Teague v. Walnut Ridge Sch., 315 Ark. 424, 868 S.W.2d 56 (1993).

School employee substantially complied with this section by delivering his resignation, which was addressed to the school board, to the principal; this holding is based in part on the facts that employee delivered his resignation to the principal with full intent that it make its way to the school board and that knowledge of the resignation made its way to the school board prior to employee's unsuccessful attempt to revoke his resignation. Teague v. Walnut Ridge Sch., 315 Ark. 424, 868 S.W.2d 56 (1993).

Tenure Policy.

Adoption of a teacher tenure policy by a school board did not give the teachers a tenure beyond or greater than that authorized by former similar section. Nethercutt v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 251 Ark. 836, 475 S.W.2d 517 (1972) (decision under prior law).

Termination.

Evidence insufficient to compel issuance of teaching contract. Special Sch. Dist. v. Lynch, 242 Ark. 385, 413 S.W.2d 880 (1967) (decision under prior law).

Evidence sufficient to justify termination. Mitchell v. Alma School Dist., 332 F. Supp. 473 (W.D. Ark. 1971); Cato v. Collins, 394 F. Supp. 629 (E.D. Ark. 1975), aff'd, 539 F.2d 656 (8th Cir. 1976); King v. Cochran, 419 F. Supp. 54 (W.D. Ark. 1976), aff'd, 551 F.2d 1133 (8th Cir. 1977).

Termination under § 6-17-1507 could not be used as a subterfuge to enforce nonrenewal, when the procedure for nonrenewal was void due to noncompliance with the nonrenewal statute. Hannon v. Armorel Sch. Dist. # 9, 329 Ark. 267, 946 S.W.2d 950 (1997) (decided under former version of § 6-17-503).

Cited: Allred v. Ark. Dep't of Corr. Sch. Dist., 322 Ark. 772, 912 S.W.2d 4 (1995); Spainhour v. Dover Pub. Sch. Dist., 331 Ark. 53, 958 S.W.2d 528 (1998); Harris v. Altheimer Unified Sch. Dist., 94 Ark. App. 152, 227 S.W.3d 437 (2006); Bismarck Sch. Dist. v. Sims, 2012 Ark. App. 239, 406 S.W.3d 805 (2012).