Court Opinion

ID: 9538287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:34:18.925968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:43.147917
License: Public Domain

*13BOOCHEVER, Justice,
concurring.
I agree that there is a right to review the decision not to retain a nontenured teacher, and that that right is not to a trial de novo. I think, however, that we should delineate the nature of that right to review more particularly than does the majority.
In my opinion, the review should first assure that statutory procedures have been followed. This was clearly the case as far as Shafting was concerned. Second, the review should determine that the reasons set forth for nonretention are not a subterfuge for an impermissible reason, such as one based on the exercise of constitutional rights or in violation of rights guaranteed by the constitution. Third, I believe that there should be some evidence to support at least one of the reasons given for the discharge. In this case, two of the reasons given for the discharge were that Shafting’s classes were not challenging enough to students with high ability, and he had a lack of interest in teaching. There was evidence sustaining those reasons. An affidavit was presented by Llewellyn Farmer, a teacher who had team taught with Shat-ting. She indicated that: Shafting appeared not to be interested in the teaching profession; he seemed to approach his class preparation in a perfunctory manner; he frequently used “game days and movie days” primarily for entertainment rather than instruction. The affidavit indicated that a conference was held between Shafting, the principal and Ms. Farmer concerning Shatting’s lack of interest in teaching and interest in his students and that, after some improvement, Shafting reverted to his former attitude.
I therefore agree that there was adequate evidence to support a reason that was not an invalid or impermissible one for the nonretention of Shafting.