{ "id": 5606163, "name": "ELIZABETH STREJCEK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BERWYN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 100, Respondent-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Strejcek v. Board of Education of Berwyn School District No. 100", "decision_date": "1979-10-22", "docket_number": "No. 78-1298", "first_page": "400", "last_page": "403", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "78 Ill. App. 3d 400" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "188 N.E.2d 237", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "241" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 Ill. App. 2d 308", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5252172 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "316" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/40/0308-01" ] }, { "cite": "256 N.E.2d 758", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "764" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 Ill. 2d 75", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2897157 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "84" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/45/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 N.E.2d 477", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 Ill. App. 3d 853", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3420215 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "864" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/57/0853-01" ] }, { "cite": "208 N.E.2d 423", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "427" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 Ill. App. 2d 56", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2604058 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "63-64" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/60/0056-01" ] }, { "cite": "370 N.E.2d 1050", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 Ill. 2d 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5455550 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/69/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 N.E.2d 562", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "566-67" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "390 Ill. 412", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2509352 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "421-22" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/390/0412-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 484, "char_count": 8632, "ocr_confidence": 0.895, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.606997171242164e-07, "percentile": 0.684825447352336 }, "sha256": "f73aa9e490f9a0f6655a953b539c342bfcaa17634ee52695a5915f322591edc1", "simhash": "1:9915887d7191b64e", "word_count": 1418 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:30:08.757403+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ELIZABETH STREJCEK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BERWYN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 100, Respondent-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE CAMPBELL\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, Elizabeth Strejcek, a probationary teacher, filed an amended petition for a writ of mandamus and an amended complaint for a declaratory judgment against the defendant, Board of Education of Berwyn School District 100 (hereinafter Board), alleging that her dismissal without a hearing had been improper. Defendant, pursuant to section 48 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110, par. 48), filed a motion to strike and dismiss the amended petition for the writ of mandamus and the amended complaint with supporting affidavits. The circuit court of Cook County granted defendant\u2019s motion and dismissed plaintiff\u2019s petition and complaint. Plaintiff appeals that dismissal and contends that she had achieved contractual continued service status entitling her to a hearing before she was terminated.\nWe affirm.\nOn appeal, plaintiff alleges her work for the Board as a teacher aide from September 1974 to February 1975 should be considered employment as a probationary teacher. She alleges the duties she performed then were tantamount to those of a teacher. Plaintiff also alleges her work as a probationary teacher for two calendar years completes the two consecutive school terms required for contractual continued services status in the teacher tenure act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 11 et seq.). The Board denies these allegations in the affidavits.\nStrejcek was employed by defendant first as a part-time substitute teacher during the 1971-72, 72-73, and 73-74 school years. From the beginning of the 1974-75 school year she worked as a teacher aide until February 1975. The Board hired Strejcek as a full-time probationary teacher February 24, 1975. She then worked as a full-time probationary teacher for the remainder of that school year and during the 1975-76 and 1976-77 school years.\nOn March 13, 1977, plaintiff was informed by registered mail by defendant that she would be dismissed effective June 22, 1977, due to several stated deficiencies in her work. The Board did not schedule a hearing before a hearing officer on the dismissal nor did Strejcek request that such a hearing not be held. Plaintiff then filed suit requesting the court direct the Berwyn Board of Education to send a copy of plaintiff\u2019s dismissal letter to the State Board of Education and requested a declaratory judgment that she was entitled to a hearing. The court dismissed her petition and complaint finding no stated cause of action.\nSection 24 \u2014 12 of the Illinois School Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 122, par. 1 \u2014 1 et seq.) provides that in order to dismiss a teacher in contractual continued service:\n\u201c# \u00ab o the board must first approve a motion containing specific charges by a majority vote of all its members. Unless the teacher within 10 days requests in writing of the board that no hearing be scheduled, the board shall schedule a hearing on those charges before a disinterested hearing officer on a date no less than 30 nor more than 60 days after the enactment of the motion.\u201d\nThe hearing requirement applies to the dismissal of only those teachers who have acquired contractual continued service status. The act requires employment as a probationary teacher for two consecutive school terms.\n\u201cAny teacher who has been employed in any district as a full-time teacher for a probationary period of 2 consecutive school terms shall enter upon contractual continued service unless given written notice of dismissal stating the specific reason therefor, by registered mail by the employing board at least 60 days before the end of such period. * * Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 11.\nUnder a previous statute, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1941, ch. 122, par. 136c, the teacher tenure act was interpreted as requiring two calendar years of employment as opposed to two consecutive school terms. In Anderson v. Board of Education (1945), 390 Ill. 412, 61 N.E.2d 562, the Illinois Supreme Court stated:\n\u201c[W]e start out with the presumption that the word \u2018year\u2019 as used in the Tenure Law means a calendar year of twelve months, and that construction will be abandoned only in case (1) it is otherwise expressed in the statute; or (2) such construction is inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature or repugnant to the context of the same statute.\u201d Anderson, 390 Ill. 412, 421-22, 61 N.E.2d 562, 566-67.\nIn 1949 the legislature amended the act to require two consecutive school terms rather than two calendar years as was held in Anderson. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1949, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 2.) The 1949 amendment gave \u201cschool term\u201d the present definition of \u201cthat portion of the school year, July 1 to the following June 30, when school is in actual session.\u201d See Bessler v. Board of Education (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 191, 370 N.E.2d 1050.\nThe legislature thus made July 1 to June 30, from the beginning to the end of a school year, the period to evaluate a teacher\u2019s performance instead of two calendar years.\n\u201cThe purpose of a probationary period under the school code is to give the school board an opportunity to observe and evaluate the teacher\u2019s work, and the board has by statute the right to two consecutive school years of probationary period to determine whether the probationary teacher is in the eyes of the board qualified to enter upon contractual continued service.\u201d Elder v. Board of Education (1965), 60 Ill. App. 2d 56, 63-64, 208 N.E.2d 423, 427.\nAs stated in Lenard v. Board of Education (1978), 57 Ill. App. 3d 853, 864, 373 N.E.2d 477, 484:\n\u201cWe should keep in mind that the School Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 11 et seq.) created a liability where none would otherwise exist and must, therefore, be strictly construed.\u201d\nThis court must follow the statute according to its terms.\n\u201cWhere the language of the act is certain and unambiguous the only legitimate function of the courts is to enforce the law as enacted by the legislature.\u201d (Certain Taxpayers v. Sheahen (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 75, 84, 256 N.E.2d 758, 764.)\nHere, although plaintiff was employed as a probationary teacher for more than two years chronologically from February 24, 1975, under the plain wording of the statute she did not complete two consecutive school terms and did not gain contractual continued service status.\nStrejcek also alleges that she was employed as a full-time probationary teacher before the Board officially gave her that status. This argument is without merit. The record reveals that teachers and teacher aides have some similar duties but the supervisory responsibility of teachers is greater. Teacher aides may be unpaid volunteers. They must, however, be \u201cunder the immediate supervision of a teacher * e (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 122, par. 10 \u2014 22.34.) It is undisputed that the plaintiff had a teaching certificate although working as a teacher aide. The main contention of the plaintiff is that she was performing the unsupervised duties of a probationary teacher before February 24,1975. The trial court rejected this contention.\nThe court compared the duties of a teacher aide and those of a probationary teacher to duties as a meter maid and duties as a patrolman. In both cases each position may have similar and overlapping duties. However, in this instance the statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 122, par. 24\u201411) does not authorize duties of a teacher aide, even if unsupervised, as counting toward the necessary two-year probationary period. Thus plaintiff\u2019s job did not ripen into the status of a probationary teacher until she was given that position.\n\u201c[A] probationary period, being a testing period, begins with the date of the appointment which will ripen into a permanent position following the statutory probationary period.\u201d People ex rel. Thomas v. Board of Education (1963), 40 Ill. App. 2d 308, 316, 188 N.E.2d 237, 241.\nPlaintiff was hired as a probationary teacher in February 1975 and was notified of her dismissal March 14,1977, more than 60 days before the end of her second consecutive school term, June 30, 1977. Thus plaintiff has not stated a cause of action entitling her to\" the relief sought, and the decision of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nGOLDBERG, P. J\u201e and McGLOON, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE CAMPBELL" } ], "attorneys": [ "Drach, Terrell and Deffenbaugh, of Springfield, for appellant.", "Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas & Lifton, Ltd., of Chicago (Everett E. Nicholas, Jr., and Therese A. Linden, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ELIZABETH STREJCEK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BERWYN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 100, Respondent-Appellee.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 78-1298\nOpinion filed October 22, 1979.\nDrach, Terrell and Deffenbaugh, of Springfield, for appellant.\nRobbins, Schwartz, Nicholas & Lifton, Ltd., of Chicago (Everett E. Nicholas, Jr., and Therese A. Linden, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0400-01", "first_page_order": 422, "last_page_order": 425 }