Court Opinion

ID: 9532800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:24:55.637458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:50.637583
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BARRY, dissenting: I must dissent from the decision of the majority in this case, because I interpret section 24 — 11 of the School Code to require a reversal of the trial court’s dismissal order. Before 1965, section 10 — 22.31 of the School Code authorized school boards to enter into joint agreements with other school boards to provide special education programs and facilities, as follows: “Sec. 10 — 22.31. Special education. To enter into joint agreements with other school boards to establish programs for children of the type described in Section 14 — 1, to provide the needed special educational facilities, and to employ a director and other professional workers for such program. The director may be employed by one district and such district shall be reimbursed by other districts that are parties to the agreement on a mutually agreed basis. Such agreements may provide that one district may supply professional workers for a joint program conducted in another district.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, ch. 122, par. 10 — 22.31. The School Code also provided for teachers employed in such special education programs to have tenure rights (contractual continued service status) in each of the school districts participating in the joint agreement. The last paragraph of section 24 — 11 of the School Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, ch. 122, par. 24 — 11) provided: “The employment of any teacher in a special education program authorized by Sections 14 — 1 to 14 — 12, inclusive, shall be under the provisions of this and the succeeding sections of this Article, and such employment shall be deemed a continuation of the previous employment of such teacher in any of the participating districts, regardless of the participation of other districts in the special education program. Any teacher employed as a full-time teacher in a special education program in which 2 or more school districts participate for a probationary period of 2 consecutive years shall enter upon contractual continued service in each of the participating districts, subject to the provisions of this and the succeeding provisions of this Article, and in the event of the termination of the program shall be eligible for any vacant position in any of such districts for which he is qualified.” In 1965, the Illinois legislature also authorized school boards to enter into joint agreements to establish any type of educational program which a district might establish individually, by adding the following section to the School Code: “To enter into joint agreements with other school boards to establish any type of educational program which any district may establish individually, to provide the needed educational facilities and to employ a director and other professional workers for such program. The director and other professional workers may be employed by one district which shall be reimbursed on a mutually agreed basis by other districts that are parties to the joint agreement. Such agreements may provide that one district may supply professional workers for a joint program conducted in another district.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, ch. 122, par. 10 — 22.31a. Then, at the 1967 session of the legislature, section 24 — 11 was amended by including joint educational programs established under section 10 — 22.31a within the tenure provisions of the School Code. Section 24 — 11, as amended, is as follows: “The employment of any teacher in a special education program authorized by Sections 14 — 1.01 to 14 — 14.01, inclusive, or a joint educational program established under Section 10 —22.31a, shall be under the provisions of this and the succeeding sections of this Article, and such employment shall be deemed a continuation of the previous employment of such teacher in any of the participating districts, regardless of the participation of other districts in the program. Any teacher employed as a full-time teacher in a special education program in which 2 or more school districts participate for a probationary period of 2 consecutive years shall enter upon contractual continued service in each of the participating districts, subject to the provisions of this and the succeeding provisions of this Article, and in the event of the termination of the program shall be eligible for any vacant position in any of such districts for which he is qualified.” (Amendment underlined.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 122, par. 24-11.) The resulting statutory law thus expressly provided that the employment of any teachers in a joint program “shall be under the provisions of this [section 24 — 11] and the succeeding sections of this Article [article 24]” of the School Code. When the legislative activity and the chronology of these amendments are considered, it seems clear that the provision for multiple district tenure in section 24 — 11 was enacted and reenacted so that, firstly, special education programs and then all joint programs created under sections 10 — 22.31 and 10 — 22.31a could obtain experienced teachers by treating joint-program employment as a continuation of previous employment for tenure purposes, and also by recognizing tenure rights in all participating districts for the teachers so employed. The plain language of section 24 — 11, as amended in 1967, indicates an intention to provide teachers employed by all types of joint education programs the same rights as teachers employed by the oldest type of joint program — the special education programs. “Such employment” in the first sentence of the said 1967 amendment last quoted above most certainly referred to both special and joint educational programs. I fail to grasp the logic of construing section 24 — 11 so as to favor employees of special education programs over employees of other joint programs, such as the vocational education program involved here. I have no doubt the legislature intended to add rather than to limit. Further, I fail to see the necessity of amending by exact repetition every sentence in section 24 — 11, as the majority position infers, when in fact the plain language of the first sentence as amended made all provisions of section 24 — 11 applicable to joint education programs. As I have indicated, I would reverse the dismissal order, and remand this cause for further proceedings.