This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A14-1441

Joann Karetov,

Relator, 

vs. 

Independent School District No. 283, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, 

Respondent

Filed June 15, 2015

Affirmed

Peterson, Judge

Independent School District No. 283

David P. Jendrzejek, Moss & Barnett, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for relator)

Michelle D. Kenney, Knutson Flynn & Deans PA, Mendota Heights, Minnesota (for 

respondent)

Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Harten, 

Judge.

*

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

PETERSON, Judge

In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges respondent school district’s termination 

of her probationary principal contract, arguing that (1) the school district failed to comply 

with statutory requirements for evaluations; and (2) its decision to terminate and not 

 

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to 

Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. 
2

renew her contract was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, unsupported by substantial 

evidence, and affected by errors of law. We affirm.

FACTS

Respondent Independent School District No. 283, St. Louis Park, hired relator 

Joann Karetov as the principal of St. Louis Park High School for the 2013-2014 school 

year. Relator’s employment began on July 1, 2013. Because it was relator’s first 

employment with the school district, she had at least a one-year probationary period 

under Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 5(a) (2014). See also Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 1 

(2014) (defining teacher to include principal). 

For the 2013-2014 school year, the district adopted a principal-evaluation process 

to comply with an amendment to the statute that governs the duties and evaluation of 

principals. 2011 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch. 11, art. 2, § 22, at 38-39 (codified at 

Minn. Stat. § 123B.147, subd. 3 (2014)). The evaluation process sets forth a three-year 

timeline and provides for a preconference and goal-setting session near the beginning of 

each school year and a mid-year data conference during February of each school year. A 

principal-evaluation-summary form is used to measure performance in the categories of 

mission and vision, instructional leadership, human resources, professional-and-ethical 

relationship, and resource management. A final evaluation report, which addresses three 

weighted categories, including measures of student performance, is issued after the end of 

the third school year. 

In late October 2013, relator met with the district superintendent to review her 

self-assessment evaluation and discuss setting goals for the school year. A second 
3

meeting with the superintendent to finalize relator’s goals for the school year occurred on 

November 8, 2013. A principal-evaluation-summary form was completed and signed by 

relator and the superintendent on November 8, 2013, but the parties agree that it was not 

a formal evaluation. 

Relator’s first formal evaluation occurred in February 2014, and a principalevaluation-summary form was completed and signed by the superintendent. Relator 

received an overall proficient rating for the categories of mission and vision, instructional 

leadership, human resources, and resource management. Relator received an overall 

unsatisfactory rating in the professional-and-ethical-relationship category, although she 

received proficient ratings in five of the six subcategories in that category. 

The superintendent conducted a second evaluation of relator on April 17, 2014. 

Although the principal-evaluation-summary form was not used, the evaluation addressed

each of the five performance-measure categories used in the principal-evaluationsummary form. The evaluation did not indicate any concerns in the mission-and-vision 

or instructional-leadership categories but identified concerns in the areas of human 

resources, professional-and-ethical leadership, and resource management. 

The superintendent conducted a third evaluation of relator on May 7, 2014. 

Although the principal-evaluation-summary form was not used, the evaluation addressed

each of the five performance-measure categories used in the principal-evaluationsummary form. The evaluation identified concerns in the areas of human resources and 

professional-and-ethical leadership. The evaluation concluded with the statement that 

relator’s contract would not be renewed at the end of the school year.
4

The superintendent recommended to the school board at its June 27, 2014 meeting 

that relator’s contract be terminated and not renewed, and the board adopted a resolution 

terminating relator’s principal contract at the end of the 2013-2014 school year and not 

renewing it for the 2014-2015 school year. In response to a request by relator, the board 

chairperson wrote her a letter explaining the reasons for the school district’s decision. 

This certiorari appeal followed.

D E C I S I O N

Generally,

[w]hen reviewing a decision by a school board, this court 

must determine whether the decision is fraudulent, arbitrary, 

unreasonable, not supported by substantial evidence on the 

record, not within its jurisdiction, or based upon an erroneous 

theory of law. The decision is not reviewed de novo, and this 

court may not substitute its judgment for that of the school 

board.

Exner v. Minneapolis Pub. Schs., Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 849 N.W.2d 437, 441 (Minn. 

App. 2014) (citations and quotations omitted). But “[a] school board has total discretion 

when deciding not to renew the contract of a probationary [principal].” Allen v. Bd. of 

Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 582, 435 N.W.2d 124, 126 (Minn. App. 1989) (citing 

Minn. Stat. § 125.12, subd. 3 (1986)),

1

review denied (Minn. Apr. 19, 1989). 

I.

Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 5(a) (2014), states:

The school board must adopt a plan for written evaluation of 

teachers during the probationary period that is consistent with 

 

1 Minn. Stat. § 125.12, subd. 3, has been renumbered as Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 5 

(2014), but still contains the language relied on by the Allen court.
5

subdivision 8. Evaluation must occur at least three times 

periodically throughout each school year for a teacher 

performing services during that school year; the first 

evaluation must occur within the first 90 days of teaching 

service.

As long as a school district substantially complies with these requirements, “the court 

will not interfere with the district’s decision not to renew a probationary [principal’s] 

contract.” Savre v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 263, 642 N.W.2d 467, 471 (Minn. App. 2002).

Relator argues that the principal-evaluation process adopted by the district did not 

comply with Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subd. 8 (2014). But the legislature directed that 

subdivision 8 “applies beginning in the 2014-2015 school year.” 2011 Minn. Laws 1st 

Spec. Sess. ch. 11, art. 2, § 14, at 33. Because subdivision 8 did not apply until the 2014-

2015 school year, it did not apply to relator, whose contract was terminated and not 

renewed in June 2014. The requirement that an evaluation occur within the first 90 days 

of teaching service, however, is not in subdivision 8 and applies to all collectivebargaining agreements ratified after July 1, 2013. 2011 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch. 

11, art. 2, § 2, at 31-32. Relator argues that this requirement applies to her because the 

teachers’ contract was ratified in March 2014 and applies retroactively. Although relator 

has not shown that the teachers’ contract applied to her, the statute requires the school 

board to evaluate teachers during the first 90 days of teaching service, the statute does not 

limit application of the 90-day requirement to collective-bargaining agreements, and the 

definition of teacher includes a principal. The 90-day requirement, therefore, applies to 

relator.
6

Relator was not evaluated within the first 90 days after beginning her employment 

on July 1, but she met with the superintendent twice within the first 90 days of the school 

year to set and finalize goals for the school year. At the second meeting, a principalevaluation-summary form was completed and signed by relator and the superintendent. 

On the whole, the process substantially complied with the statutory requirement that an 

evaluation occur within the first 90 days of teaching service, and substantial compliance 

is sufficient under Savre, 642 N.W.2d at 471. 

In her reply brief, relator argues that the April and May evaluations were deficient 

because they did not use the principal-evaluation-summary form. Although the form was 

not used, the evaluations addressed all of the performance-measure categories used in the 

form.

II.

Minn. Stat. § 123B.147, subd. 3(b), states:

The annual evaluation [of a principal] must: . . .

(2) include formative and summative 

evaluations based on multiple measures of student progress 

toward career and college readiness; . . .

(4) include on-the-job observations and 

previous evaluations;

(5) allow surveys to help identify a principal’s 

effectiveness, leadership skills and processes, and strengths 

and weaknesses in exercising leadership in pursuit of school 

success;

(6) use longitudinal data on student academic 

growth as 35 percent of the evaluation and incorporate district 

achievement goals and targets;

(7) be linked to professional development that 

emphasizes improved teaching and learning, curriculum and 

instruction, student learning, and a collaborative professional 

culture; and
7

(8) for principals not meeting standards of 

professional practice or other criteria under this subdivision, 

implement a plan to improve the principal’s performance and 

specify the procedure and consequence if the principal’s 

performance is not improved.

Relator argues that the district’s evaluations failed to meet these requirements. 

The district’s principal-evaluation process only requires a summative evaluation and the 

use of longitudinal data at the end of the three-year evaluation process. But relator’s 

evaluations addressed developing and implementing measurable expectations and 

achievement goals for students and a plan to improve student achievement, thereby 

substantially complying with subdivision 3(b)(2), (6). Contrary to relator’s claim that no 

on-the-job observations were conducted as required by subdivision 3(b)(4), the April 

2014 evaluation begins with the superintendent’s statement that “I want to begin this 

evaluation by recognizing my comments that follow are based on my personal 

observations as well as information I have gathered from others.” Regarding subdivision 

3(b)(5), the statute allows but does not require surveys. The district’s principalevaluation process includes surveys, but they are optional in years one and two, and 

relator did not exercise the option to use one. The district’s evaluations of relator were

sufficient to substantially comply with the requirements of subdivision 3(b)(7)-(8).

III.

Relator argues that the school board’s decision to terminate and not renew her 

contract was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, unsupported by substantial evidence, 

and affected by errors of law. These arguments are inconsistent with a school board’s 

total discretion to not renew a probationary principal. The supreme court has expressed 
8

its “reluctance to interfere, so long as the statutory procedures are followed, with a school 

board’s termination of a probationary [principal].” Skeim v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 115, 

305 Minn. 464, 473, 234 N.W.2d 806, 812 (1975). When a school board has complied 

with statutory requirements in terminating a probationary principal’s contract, this court 

will not substitute its judgment for that of the school board. Pearson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 

716, 290 Minn. 400, 404, 188 N.W.2d 776, 779 (1971). Thus, the only question in this 

case is whether the district’s evaluations of relator substantially complied with statutory 

requirements. See Tornow v. Bd. of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 118, 435 N.W.2d 142, 

144-45 (Minn. App. 1989) (affirming nonrenewal of probationary superintendent’s 

contract based on school board’s total discretion to make that determination). Although 

the district did not evaluate relator within the first 90 days after her employment began,

the evaluations substantially complied with statutory requirements. Therefore, we affirm 

the termination and nonrenewal of relator’s probationary principal contract.

Affirmed.