New York Law Review

Tag: School Principal

  • Bell v. Board of Education, 61 N.Y.2d 149 (1984): Defining Scope of Administrative Tenure Areas

    Bell v. Board of Education, 61 N.Y.2d 149 (1984)

    A board of education may establish a tenure area for administrative employees, but a specific tenure area such as “high school principal” must be consciously created by the board, not inferred from descriptive terms used in board minutes.

    Summary

    Roger Bell, a tenured high school principal, challenged his transfer to a junior high school principal position, arguing that his tenure was specifically as a “senior high school principal.” The Board of Education claimed his tenure area was simply “principal,” allowing for the transfer. The Court of Appeals held that Bell failed to prove the existence of a separate tenure area of senior high school principal. The Court emphasized that specific tenure areas must be intentionally created by the board, not inadvertently implied by job titles used in meeting minutes. This ruling reinforces the flexibility of school boards to manage administrative assignments, provided they do so within established tenure areas.

    Facts

    Roger Bell was appointed as high school principal and later granted tenure, with board minutes referring to him as “high school principal” and “senior high school principal.” Subsequently, the board defined administrative tenure areas, including a general “principal” category. Bell was then transferred to a junior high principal position. Bell argued his tenure was specifically as senior high school principal, preventing his transfer.

    Procedural History

    Bell initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging his transfer. Special Term dismissed the petition, finding the transfer was not arbitrary or unlawful. The Appellate Division reversed, ordering Bell’s reinstatement, concluding sufficient evidence existed to establish a separate tenure area of senior high school principal. The Board of Education appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the designation of an administrator as “senior high school principal” in board minutes, coupled with another individual’s appointment as “elementary school principal,” is sufficient to establish a distinct tenure area, preventing the administrator’s transfer to a different principal role.

    Holding

    No, because the designation in board minutes alone is insufficient to establish a specific tenure area; the creation of such an area requires a conscious and deliberate decision by the board of education.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals stated that while boards of education can establish specific tenure areas for administrative employees, they must do so intentionally. The court reasoned that the burden of proving the existence of a specific tenure area rests on the petitioner, and descriptive titles in board minutes, such as “senior high school principal,” are insufficient evidence. The court quoted, “[T]hey merely identify an individual’s title and the school to which he or she has been assigned.” The court emphasized that such designations are often inadvertent and should not bind the board. The court deferred to the Commissioner of Education’s view, which encourages tenure areas modeled on those promulgated by the Education Department. The decision supports administrative flexibility, preventing unintended creation of narrow tenure areas. The court held that Bell failed to provide enough evidence to prove that the board had consciously established a separate tenure area for senior high school principal. The court noted that absent explicit board action to create a specific tenure area, the general tenure area of “principal” applied.

  • Matter of Jadick v. Bd. of Educ., 15 N.Y.2d 652 (1964): Determining Similarity of Positions for Tenure Rights

    15 N.Y.2d 652 (1964)

    Under New York Education Law § 2510, a principal’s tenure rights extend to similar positions, and the determination of similarity is a factual one based on the duties and responsibilities of the positions in question.

    Summary

    Alexander Jadick, a former principal, sought reinstatement to a principal position, arguing his tenure rights were violated when his position was eliminated. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts, holding that Jadick was entitled to be appointed as principal of the Beacon six-year high school nunc pro tunc. The court found that the similarity of the positions should have mandated his appointment under Education Law § 2510(3). The dissent argued that the lower courts correctly found the positions were not similar and that the majority was creating a sweeping rule that all principal positions are virtually the same.

    Facts

    Alexander Jadick held tenure as a principal. His position was eliminated. He argued that his tenure rights entitled him to a similar position. The specific positions at issue were principal of a junior high school (where Jadick had tenure) and principal of a six-year high school.

    Procedural History

    Jadick initially brought a petition seeking appointment to the principalship of the Beacon six-year high school. The trial court ruled against Jadick, finding the positions were not similar. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the positions of junior high school principal and principal of a six-year high school are similar under Education Law § 2510, thereby entitling the appellant to be appointed to the latter position after his former position was eliminated.

    Holding

    Yes, because on these facts, such appointment is required as a matter of law by subdivision 3 of section 2510 of the Education Law.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court majority, in a brief opinion, held that the facts of the case mandated the appointment of Jadick to the principalship of the Beacon six-year high school. The decision was based on Education Law § 2510(3), which governs the rights of teachers and administrators when positions are abolished.
    The dissenting opinion, authored by Judge Van Voorhis, argued that the lower courts’ finding that the positions were not similar should be respected. The dissent emphasized that the trial court made a specific factual finding that the positions were not similar, distinguishing the case from Matter of Taylor v. Board of Educ., where a similar finding was made in the opposite direction. The dissent also pointed out that Jadick’s tenure was primarily in elementary education, making it even less clear that he was qualified for a senior high school principalship.
    The dissent further stated that it is necessary that the principal shall understand and be in touch with the kind of education which is being provided at the level which he supervises. The dissent argued against a rigid interpretation of the Education Law that would prevent boards of education from distinguishing between different types of principalships. “It is too sweeping a pronouncement to lay down a rule of law that they are all, everywhere in the State, virtually the same.”