Opinion ID: 2361116
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Professional Negotiations Agreement

Text: The failure of the school board to formally evaluate Code as a coach prior to deciding not to reappoint him as head basketball coach did not violate the agreement between the Board of Education and the teachers of the district embodied in the Professional Negotiations Agreement. The preamble to the agreement states in part, The focus will be on the development of the student so as to meet the needs of the individual students and to attain the highest level of academic achievement. The clear language of the PNA demonstrates that it is for the purpose of improving the scholastic performance of all of the students, as distinguished from the athletic performance of some of the students. As noted by the circuit judge, the provisions of the PNA were not in conflict with the requirements of either KRS 156.101 or 704 KAR 3:345. The PNA has no requirement that coaches receive any type of evaluation for their coaching abilities. A review of the Erlanger-Elsmere School Performance Evaluation booklet indicates no mention of evaluation of school athletic coaches. The booklet reflects the implementing regulations of 704 KAR 3:345 and KRS 156.101. As with the statutes and regulations otherwise mentioned, the booklet makes repeated reference to teachers and administrators and no reference to coaches for evaluation purposes. It should be understood that the performance and retention of coaching duties, for which a teacher may receive a salary supplement, are subject to the approval of school administrators. KRS 161.760 requires school superintendents to follow a process of notifying a teacher of a reduction of his or her duties, particularly if that reduction results in a lower annual salary for the teacher. The statute requires that notice of such a reduction of duties must be given by May 15 of the school year preceding the effective date of the reduction. If the teacher will receive a lower salary due to the reduction, a statement of the reasons for the reduction must be given. We cannot accept the assertion by Code that he was entitled to a formal evaluation on the grounds that but for his valid teaching certificate . . . he would not have been eligible to serve as head basketball coach . . . . It is too much of a leap of logic to conclude that teachers who accept extra service assignments as coaches must receive formal written evaluation both of their teaching performance and their coaching performance. As noted in Thompson, supra , the purpose of an evaluation appeals panel is to review the job performance of a teacher in order to assure that the evaluation performance was fair. Again, there is no mention of any responsibilities or criteria for evaluating coaches. It is clear that the General Assembly has amended the statutes in question on a variety of occasions and has not chosen to incorporate any additional evaluations for coaches. Consequently, this Court is required to interpret the statute as written and rewritten on multiple occasions. If the General Assembly desired to require a formal evaluation of coaching duties, it could have included such language in the statute. For a decision in accord with the one we reached today, see Neal v. School District of York, 205 Neb. 558, 288 N.W.2d 725 (Neb.1980), in which the Nebraska Supreme Court held that nothing in the statutory language or legislative history indicated that the legislature intended that the position of coach was within the applicable statutory definition of teacher or administrator. Nothing in our decision should be construed as a denigration of the great responsibilities which coaches and other moderators of extracurricular activities at all levels bear toward the students that they encounter in the various athletic programs. However, the mandate of the law as presently written is directed to academic and scholastic activities for all the students as distinguished from athletic programs for some of the students. If the General Assembly wishes to establish appropriate standards for the evaluation of coaches it certainly could do so in the future. It is the decision of this Court that a certified school teacher who received formal teaching evaluations is not entitled to formal evaluations for extra service coaching assignments before a school district may remove him from his coaching position. The decisions of the Court of Appeals and the circuit court are reversed. The failure to evaluate a teacher as a coach does not violate the statutes or regulations, nor the Professional Negotiation Agreement between the school board and the teachers of the district. All concur.