{ "id": 3542140, "name": "JOLYON W. SCHAFER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Schafer v. Board of Education of Arlington Heights School District No. 25", "decision_date": "1987-06-30", "docket_number": "No. 84\u20142157", "first_page": "884", "last_page": "891", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "157 Ill. App. 3d 884" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "484 N.E.2d 445", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "137 Ill. App. 3d 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3641427 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/137/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "442 N.E.2d 870", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "93 Ill. 2d 101", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3103148 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/93/0101-01" ] }, { "cite": "472 N.E.2d 407", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 Ill. 2d 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3146230 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/104/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "391 N.E.2d 114", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 Ill. App. 3d 723", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5584910 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/72/0723-01" ] }, { "cite": "494 N.E.2d 1191", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 Ill. App. 3d 463", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3499079 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/144/0463-01" ] }, { "cite": "466 N.E.2d 311", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "125 Ill. App. 3d 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3632592 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/125/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "365 N.E.2d 322", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Ill. 2d 143", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5811365 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/67/0143-01" ] }, { "cite": "367 N.E.2d 1337", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Ill. 2d 434", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5813000 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/67/0434-01" ] }, { "cite": "475 N.E.2d 571", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "131 Ill. App. 3d 56", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3435817 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/131/0056-01" ] }, { "cite": "447 N.E.2d 394", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 Ill. 2d 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3111336 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "216" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/95/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "469 N.E.2d 569", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "103 Ill. 2d 192", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3152614 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "206-07" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/103/0192-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 707, "char_count": 17732, "ocr_confidence": 0.77, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08, "percentile": 0.33314297474485965 }, "sha256": "b5536af6ab972489aa5e35ea3b14b119c40a4cd564677cdd98ae0f8b84f4382a", "simhash": "1:3f9dc0560e53a560", "word_count": 2775 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:34.857148+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JOLYON W. SCHAFER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McMORROW\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe board of education of Arlington Heights School District No. 25 (the board) appeals from the order of the circuit court of Cook County which directed the board to reinstate Jolyon Schafer (Schafer) to his tenured position as a teacher with the board. Under the terms of the board\u2019s contract with the Arlington Teachers\u2019 Association in effect when Schafer was a tenured teacher, the board could honorably discharge a tenured teacher during a reduction in force where the teacher was \u201cdiscemibly different.\u201d The board honorably discharged Schafer, following a hearing, on the ground that Schafer\u2019s teaching skills evidenced such \u201cdiscernible differences.\u201d Schafer filed an action challenging his discharge. The trial court reviewed the evidence presented at the board\u2019s hearing, determined that the board actually discharged Schafer for \u201cincompetence,\u201d and ordered his reinstatement as a tenured teacher.\nOn appeal, the board argues that section 24 \u2014 12 of the School Code (111. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 12) permits a board\u2019s contract with a teacher association to establish an alternative sequence of dismissal other than inverse seniority during a reduction in force. The board contends that its agreement with the Arlington Teachers\u2019 Association, which recognized \u201cdiscernible differences\u201d as an alternative sequence of dismissal, is in accord with this provision of the School Code, and that Schafer was therefore properly dismissed on this basis by the board. The board also claims that the evidence presented at its hearing supported the board\u2019s determination that Schafer was \u201cdiscernibly different.\u201d\nWe affirm.\nBackground\nWhen Schafer was discharged in 1982, the board\u2019s actions were governed by article X \u2014 D of the professional agreement between the board and the Arlington Teachers\u2019 Association. If a reduction in force is necessary, article X \u2014 D permits the board to honorably discharge a tenured teacher with a greater number of years of continuous service after the board has undertaken a composite review of the teacher\u2019s experience, training, performance, and \u201cpotential for success.\u201d Where this composite review indicates that the teacher has \u201cdiscernible differences\u201d in his teaching abilities, such that the teacher is not \u201cthe best qualified candidate\u201d for a position, honorable discharge is considered appropriate under article X \u2014 D of the agreement.\nPrior to his discharge, Schafer had been a tenured teacher with 16 years of continuous service. He was certified to teach social studies and language arts in grades 6 through 12, had 42 credits above a bachelor\u2019s degree, and had taught eighth grade social studies, language arts, reading and grammar. At the onset of the 1981-82 school year, the board changed Schafer\u2019s teaching assignment to seventh grade language arts and reading. During the course of the year, Schafer recognized that he was having some difficulties in instructing the class, and sought and was given certain aid in his instruction.\nSchafer was initially chosen as a tenured teacher who \u201cmight\u201d be discernibly different in the fall of that same school year. At that time, the board was considering a reduction in the number of teachers it employed, although it had not yet formally decided to do so. In early 1982, the board determined to institute a reduction in force. Schafer was designated as a tenured teacher who would be considered for honorable discharge for discernible differences pursuant to article X \u2014 D of the Arlington Teachers\u2019 Association agreement. The school board\u2019s director of administration and personnel, Dr. Joseph Ward (Ward), and the board\u2019s director of instruction, Dr. James Montgomery (Montgomery), made several independent observations of Schafer\u2019s classroom performance at various times during the following month. Schafer was later advised of both individuals\u2019 recommendation that he be viewed as \u201cdiscernibly different.\u201d He requested, and received, a hearing before the board, wherein he was represented by counsel.\nAt the hearing, the administrator presented evidence of the administrative staff\u2019s observations of Schafer\u2019s classroom performance during the 1981-82 school year. Ward and Montgomery testified to the procedure followed in order to reach their conclusion that Schafer was \u201cdiscernibly different.\u201d This testimony established that the administration had looked at the past performance evaluations of other tenured teachers who were also qualified for Schafer\u2019s position, had fewer years of continuous service than did Schafer, and had not been previously suggested by any principal as \u201cdiscernibly different.\u201d Of these other teachers, only one had a negative evaluation on a \u201cminor problem\u201d that had occurred six or seven years earlier.\nWard testified at the hearing that of the four criteria specified in article X \u2014 D, past performance and potential for success were deemed more significant than training and experience. He stated that the final basis for concluding that Schafer was \u201cdiscernibly different\u201d was that \u201c[tjhere were no other teachers that had the same kind of problems in the classroom that Mr. Schafer had.\u201d Montgomery, who was in charge of the board\u2019s negotiating team which participated in the drafting of article X \u2014 D, also testified at the hearing that performance was \u201cthe key factor.\u201d He stated the purpose of the \u201cdiscernibly different\u201d standard was \u201cto deal with the issue of teachers who, while qualified and doing an adequate kind of performance, just were not meeting the kinds of standards that exist in this School District community.\u201d\nAfter the hearing, the board found Schafer to be \u201cdiscernibly different\u201d for two reasons. The board concluded that Schafer\u2019s \u201c[Reaching strategies and methods of communication do not properly motivate students.\u201d It also found that Schafer\u2019s \u201c[Reaching strategies and methods do not adequately present curriculum in ways conducive to student learning and understanding, for example *** [his] failure to use appropriate methods of instruction, and [his] failure to provide adequate teacher instruction preceding student assignments.\u201d\nSchafer filed an action challenging his discharge, claiming, inter alia, that his dismissal contravened the requirements of section 24 \u2014 12 of the School Code (111. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 12). He later filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted following briefing and argument. In its oral pronouncements, the court noted that the record of the board\u2019s hearing demonstrated that the board had discharged Schafer on the ground that the board considered him \u201cincompetent.\u201d The board\u2019s timely appeal followed.\nOpinion\nOn appeal, the board argues that Schafer was properly discharged for \u201cdiscernible differences\u201d in his teaching abilities. The board contends that section 24 \u2014 12 of the School Code permits a teacher association\u2019s agreement with a board to provide for an alternative sequence, other than inverse seniority, for the discharge of tenured teachers during a reduction in force. The board maintains that article X \u2014 D of its contract with the Arlington Teachers\u2019 Association is in accord with section 24 \u2014 12, because it provides for such an alternative sequence of dismissal of tenured teachers, that is, honorable discharge of a tenured teacher with a greater number of years of continuous service, where that teacher is \u201cdiscemibly different.\u201d\nIt is well established that provisions of an act are to be interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning and in their overall context within the pertinent statute. (See, e.g., People v. Jordan (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 192, 206-07, 469 N.E.2d 569; Kozak v. Retirement Board of the Fireman\u2019s Annuity & Benefit Fund (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 211, 216, 447 N.E.2d 394.) Section 24 \u2014 12 permits a board to dismiss a tenured teacher without notice of charges, a period of remediation, and an impartial hearing before a disinterested hearing officer, where dismissal occurs \u201cas a result of decision of the board to decrease the number of teachers employed by the board.\u201d (111. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 12.) It also refers to such a reduction in force as an \u201ceconomic necessity.\u201d (HI. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch.122, par. 24 \u2014 12.) If a board wishes to dismiss the tenured teacher for any reason or cause other than \u201ceconomic necessity,\u201d the board must allow remediation if the teacher\u2019s deficiencies are remediable, approve charges against the teacher, provide notice thereof to the teacher, and schedule a hearing before an independent hearing officer. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 12.\nIf a school board discharges a tenured teacher because of \u201ceconomic necessity,\u201d the board generally must dismiss this teacher because the teacher has fewer years of continuous service than other tenured teachers (i.e., inverse seniority). (111. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 12.) Although a teacher association\u2019s contract with the school board may provide for an alternative sequence of dismissal other than inverse seniority, section 24 \u2014 12 does not explain or define what alter-, native sequences of dismissal would be permissible.\nWhere several words of similar meaning are grouped together, words that are more general in meaning are to be construed as limited and qualified by accompanying words of more restrictive meaning. (See 2A A. Sutherland, Statutory Construction sec. 47.16, at 161 (4th ed. rev. 1984); see also, e.g., Page v. Corley Cos. (1985), 131 Ill. App. 3d 56, 475 N.E.2d 571.) The number of years of continuous service held by a tenured teacher, i.e., inverse seniority, is unrelated to the teacher\u2019s skills, abilities, or performance, since these deficiencies may be ground for dismissal for cause and are provided for separately in section 24 \u2014 12 (111. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 12). In view of the nature of this limitation of inverse seniority upon a board\u2019s authority, during a reduction in force, to dismiss a tenured teacher without notice of charges, a period of remediation, and an independent hearing, we conclude that an alternative sequence of dismissal permissible under section 24 \u2014 12 must bear the same characteristics as inverse seniority. Thus, an alternative sequence of dismissal pursuant to section 24 \u2014 12 established in a teacher association\u2019s agreement with a school board must also be founded upon objectively verifiable criteria unrelated to a teacher\u2019s skills, abilities, or performance.\nArticle X \u2014 D of the Arlington Teachers\u2019 Association agreement with the board permits the board, during a reduction in force, to honorably discharge a tenured teacher with a greater number of years of continuous service without affording that teacher a period of remediation, notice of charges, and an impartial hearing, where a composite review of the teacher\u2019s experience, training, performance, and \u201cpotential for success\u201d indicates that the teacher is \u201cdiscemibly different\u201d and \u201cnot the best qualified candidate\u201d for the teacher\u2019s position. The factors delineated in article X \u2014 D are not objectively verifiable criteria unrelated to a teacher\u2019s skills, abilities, or performance. As a result, we determine that article X \u2014 D of the Arlington Teachers\u2019 Association agreement with the board, to the extent that it attempts to establish \u201cdiscernible differences\u201d in a teacher\u2019s qualifications as an alternative sequence of dismissal other than inverse seniority during a reduction in force, is in conflict with section 24 \u2014 12 of the School Code. Accordingly we conclude that Schafer was not properly dismissed on this basis.\nThe board maintains that article X \u2014 D of the Arlington Teachers\u2019 Association agreement should be upheld because of its beneficial and salutary goals. The board contends that a school board faced with the \u201ceconomic necessity\u201d of a reduction in force should be afforded the authority to honorably discharge, without notice of charges, a period of remediation, and an independent hearing, those tenured teachers with greater years of service who, although \u201ccompetent,\u201d are not the \u201cbest qualified candidates\u201d for the positions held by those teachers.\nWhatever the wisdom or merit of the board\u2019s claim, the Illinois legislature has not seen fit to adopt the board\u2019s view in section 24 \u2014 12. The School Code currently permits a school board to dismiss a tenured teacher \u201cwhenever, in [the board\u2019s] opinion, the interests of the schools require [the teacher's dismissal].\u201d (111. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 122, par. 10 \u2014 22.4.) However, a board\u2019s dismissal of a tenured teacher under these circumstances must be preceded by a period of remediation, notice of charges, and an impartial hearing before a disinterested hearing officer, in accordance with section 24 \u2014 12. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 12.) Consequently, the consideration that the best interests of the schools would be served under conditions such as those advanced by the board here does not, trader section 24 \u2014 12, excuse the board\u2019s responsibility to adhere to the procedural guarantees provided a tenured teacher in section 24 \u2014 12. There is nothing in section 24 \u2014 12 that authorizes a board to dispense with the rights of a tenured teacher whose discharge is based upon concerns relating to the teacher\u2019s skills, abilities, or performance, merely because the board wishes to discharge the teacher when the board is undergoing the fortuitous circumstance of a reduction in force of the number of teachers it employs.\nWe note that the board\u2019s decision, and the manner in which that decision was reached, closely paralleled the procedures in force under the former relevant portion of section 24 \u2014 12 of the School Code regarding dismissal for cause following a hearing before a school board. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 12; see, e.g., Aulwurm v. Board of Education (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 434, 367 N.E.2d 1337; Gilliland v. Board of Education (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 143, 365 N.E.2d 322; see also Watts v. Board of Education (1984), 125 Ill. App. 3d 532, 466 N.E.2d 311.) We do not interpret the current language of section 24 \u2014 12 to allow a board\u2019s reversion to that former procedure of teacher discharge for cause, during a period when budgetary or enrollment concerns call for a reduction in force.\nGiven these considerations, we decline to adopt the board\u2019s proposed interpretation of section 24 \u2014 12. We conclude that article X \u2014 D of the Arlington Teachers\u2019 Association agreement conflicts with section 24 \u2014 12, and does not establish an acceptable alternative sequence of dismissal, other than inverse seniority, during a reduction in force.\nIn the alternative, we also concur in the decision of the trial court that Schafer was effectively discharged because the board perceived him to be \u201cincompetent.\u201d The record in the instant cause shows that the administrator\u2019s case against Schafer relied almost exclusively upon the quality of Schafer\u2019s performance during the 1981-82 school year. The memoranda of the administrative personnel who observed Schafer\u2019s classroom performance stated in detail the perceived \u201cdefitiendes\u201d in Schafer\u2019s teaching abilities. The board\u2019s letter to Schafer, attached to the board\u2019s discharge resolution, similarly stated the board\u2019s determinations of the inadequacies in Schafer\u2019s teaching skills. As both Ward and Montgomery testified, Schafer was deemed to be \u201cdiscemibly different\u201d because he did not possess, according to their judgments, the same level and degree of teaching skills as did other teachers in the district.\nEssentially Schafer was found to be \u201csubstandard\u201d for the area. We are unable to perceive how the conclusion that Schafer was \u201cinadequate\u201d in comparison to other teachers in the district can be logically distinguished from a finding that Schafer was \u201cincompetent\u201d in comparison to other teachers. The administration\u2019s argument that Schafer was \u201cdiscemibly different\u201d was founded on one central premise: \u201c[tjhere were no other teachers that had the same kind of problems in the classroom that Mr. Schafer had.\u201d We conclude that Schafer was discharged because of a finding of incompetence, irrespective of the characterization given by the board to its determination. See generally Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 122, par. 10 \u2014 22.4; McBroom v. Board of Education (1986), 144 Ill. App. 3d 463, 494 N.E.2d 1191; Board of Education v. Epstein (1979), 72 Ill. App. 3d 723, 391 N.E.2d 114.\nSection 24 \u2014 12 of the School Code sets forth the procedures that must be followed where a board seeks to dismiss a tenured teacher because of incompetence. This procedure includes a warning, an opportunity to remedy perceived deficiencies, and an impartial hearing before an independent hearing officer. (111. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 12.) None of these procedures was accorded to Schafer in the case at bar. As a result, he was wrongfully discharged by the board, and the trial court properly ordered his reinstatement. See generally Birk v. Board of Education (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 252, 472 N.E.2d 407; Walter v. Board of Education (1982), 93 Ill. 2d 101, 442 N.E.2d 870; Pennell v. Board of Education (1985), 137 Ill. App. 3d 139, 484 N.E.2d 445.\nFor the reasons stated, the order of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nLINN and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McMORROW" } ], "attorneys": [ "John H. Hager and John M. Collins, Jr., both of Cowen, Crowley & Hager, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Lawrence Jay Weiner and Joan M. Eagle, both of Weiner, Neuman & Spak, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JOLYON W. SCHAFER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 84\u20142157\nOpinion filed June 30, 1987.\nJohn H. Hager and John M. Collins, Jr., both of Cowen, Crowley & Hager, of Chicago, for appellant.\nLawrence Jay Weiner and Joan M. Eagle, both of Weiner, Neuman & Spak, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0884-01", "first_page_order": 890, "last_page_order": 897 }