168.101. Employment of certificated teachers ineligible for permanent status under the teacher tenure act (all districts except metropolitan). — 1. In addition to the employment of teachers as provided in section 168.104, the school board or board of directors of a school district, except a metropolitan school district, may, at any regular or special meeting, contract and employ legally certificated teachers not employed as superintendent of the district and not eligible under section 168.104 to gain permanent status or tenure in the position held within the school system. The contract shall be made by the order of the board, shall specify the number of months the employee is to work and the wages per month to be paid, shall be signed by the employee and the president of the board, or a facsimile signature of the president may be affixed at his direction, and the contract shall be attested by the secretary of the board by signature or facsimile.
2. After the original employment of a certificated employee not employed as superintendent of the district under this section, his employment shall continue in the same staff position from year to year subject to the regulations hereinafter set forth.
3. Each school board having one or more certificated employees as described in subsection 1 of this section under contract shall notify each such certificated employee in writing concerning his reemployment in his present staff position or lack thereof on or before the fifteenth day of April of the year in which the contract then in force expires. Failure on the part of a board to give the notice constitutes reemployment on the same terms and in the same staff position as those provided in the contract of the current fiscal year; and not later than the fifteenth day of May of the same year the board shall present a contract to each such certificated employee notified of reemployment by the district.
4. Any motion regarding reemployment of such certificated employee shall include only one person and a motion to reemploy shall be made in the positive sense and a majority of the elected members voting in the affirmative shall constitute reemployment.
5. Any such certificated employee not employed as superintendent of the district who receives a contract shall within fifteen days thereafter present to the employing board a written acceptance or rejection of the employment tendered and his failure to present the acceptance within such time constitutes a rejection of the board's offer.
6. If such certificated employee has been reemployed five times within the district, the school board, if requested in writing by such certificated employee within ten days after receipt of notice of demotion or lack of reemployment on the same terms and in the same staff position, shall make available in writing a statement of reasons for demotion or lack of reemployment within ten days after receipt of the request. The board shall grant such certificated employee a hearing if requested in writing by him within ten days after the receipt of statement of reasons, the hearing to be held within ten days after the request therefor, and to be open at the request of the certificated employee. The certificated employee may have counsel at the hearing, may testify and offer testimony of witnesses as well as other evidence sustaining his defense and may cross-examine adverse witnesses.
7. A contract between the board of education and such certificated employee may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of the certificated employee and the board.
8. This section shall not affect the employment or reemployment of the superintendent of schools by a board of education.
Notes of Decisions
Inman v. Reorganized Sch. Dist. No. II, 845 S.W.2d 688 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 13× “130, RSMo 1969, and *691 § 168.101, RSMo Cum.Supp.1975. Certain portions of these statutes have been amended as we later discuss.”
Fuller v. North Kansas City Sch. Dist., 629 S.W.2d 404 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 15× “The answers filed to this third amended petition were in the nature of certain admissions, general denials and specific allegations that the District’s refusal to reemploy Fuller was taken under the provisions of § 168.101 RSMo., was the proper procedure, and that Fuller had…”
Meloy v. Reorganized Sch. Dist. R-1 of Reynolds Cnty., 631 S.W.2d 933 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 10× “” The court further said: “The em *936 ployment and reemployment of a principal, therefore, are governed not by the Teacher Tenure Act which specifically excludes that position from its terms, but necessarily by § 168.101 which concerns all certified employees ineligible for…”
Franklin v. Bd. of Directors, Sch. Dist. of Kansas City, 772 S.W.2d 873 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 9× “A school principal in a nonmetropoli-tan school district, such as Franklin, is not entitled to tenure qua principal, but rather his rights as principal are governed by Section 168.101, RSMo 1986. Duncan v. Reorganized School District No.”
Beal v. Bd. of Educ., 637 S.W.2d 309 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 15× “He stated in his letter that his request was made pursuant to § 168.101, RSMo 1978, V.A.M.S. The board responded, citing as reasons for the demotion 1) failure to maintain proper discipline, 2) lack of effective communication between Beal and the teachers, students, and parents…”
Duncan v. Reorganized Sch. Dist. No. R-1, 617 S.W.2d 571 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 8× “In ruling against plaintiff, the trial court held: (1) that Section 168.101 2 is applicable; (2) that the February notice was valid and effective, although the case should not turn upon that point; (3) that the April 5 notice was proper; (4) that plaintiff had not made any…”
Lynch v. Webb City Sch. Dist. No. 92, 418 S.W.2d 608 (Mo. Ct. App. 1967).
· cites it 4× “Defendant first contends that “there was no contract between the parties” because the form contract signed by plaintiff and returned by her “on its face shows that it is not a complete contract, ‘signed by the teacher and the president of the board, and attested by the clerk of…”
Inman v. Reorganized Sch. Dist. No. II of Hayti, 814 S.W.2d 671 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “The trial court sustained the defendants’ motion “to dismiss plaintiff’s Amended Petition on the grounds that the Amended Petition fails to state a claim for relief.”
Sealey v. Bd. of Educ., 14 S.W.3d 597 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 24× “In her second point, Plaintiff alternatively claims that her contract was automatically renewed by reason of the Board’s failure to give her notice by April 15, 1997 as required by section 168.101. Again, we disagree. Section 168.”
Williams v. Bd. of Educ., Cass R-VIII Sch. Dist., 573 S.W.2d 81 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “The employment and reemployment of a principal, therefore, are governed not by The Teacher Tenure Act which specifically excludes that position from its terms, but necessarily by § 168.101 which concerns all certificated employees ineligible for permanent status under The…”
Hudson v. Marshall, 549 S.W.2d 147 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, § 168.101 V.A.M.S. (enacted Laws 1973, p.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 168.101(1) — 1 case
Fuller v. North Kansas City Sch. Dist., 629 S.W.2d 404 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).
“The answers filed to this third amended petition were in the nature of certain admissions, general denials and specific allegations that the District’s refusal to reemploy Fuller was taken under the provisions of § 168.101 RSMo., was the proper procedure, and that Fuller had…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 168.101(2) — 1 case
Meloy v. Reorganized Sch. Dist. R-1 of Reynolds Cnty., 631 S.W.2d 933 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).
“” The court further said: “The em *936 ployment and reemployment of a principal, therefore, are governed not by the Teacher Tenure Act which specifically excludes that position from its terms, but necessarily by § 168.101 which concerns all certified employees ineligible for…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 168.101(3) — 2 cases
Meloy v. Reorganized Sch. Dist. R-1 of Reynolds Cnty., 631 S.W.2d 933 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).
“” The court further said: “The em *936 ployment and reemployment of a principal, therefore, are governed not by the Teacher Tenure Act which specifically excludes that position from its terms, but necessarily by § 168.101 which concerns all certified employees ineligible for…”
Inman v. Reorganized Sch. Dist. No. II, 845 S.W.2d 688 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
“130, RSMo 1969, and *691 § 168.101, RSMo Cum.Supp.1975. Certain portions of these statutes have been amended as we later discuss.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 168.101(4) — 3 cases
Meloy v. Reorganized Sch. Dist. R-1 of Reynolds Cnty., 631 S.W.2d 933 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).
“” The court further said: “The em *936 ployment and reemployment of a principal, therefore, are governed not by the Teacher Tenure Act which specifically excludes that position from its terms, but necessarily by § 168.101 which concerns all certified employees ineligible for…”
Beal v. Bd. of Educ., 637 S.W.2d 309 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).
“He stated in his letter that his request was made pursuant to § 168.101, RSMo 1978, V.A.M.S. The board responded, citing as reasons for the demotion 1) failure to maintain proper discipline, 2) lack of effective communication between Beal and the teachers, students, and parents…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 168.101(6) — 2 cases
Franklin v. Bd. of Directors, Sch. Dist. of Kansas City, 772 S.W.2d 873 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).
“A school principal in a nonmetropoli-tan school district, such as Franklin, is not entitled to tenure qua principal, but rather his rights as principal are governed by Section 168.101, RSMo 1986. Duncan v. Reorganized School District No.”
Beal v. Bd. of Educ., 637 S.W.2d 309 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).
“He stated in his letter that his request was made pursuant to § 168.101, RSMo 1978, V.A.M.S. The board responded, citing as reasons for the demotion 1) failure to maintain proper discipline, 2) lack of effective communication between Beal and the teachers, students, and parents…”
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.