Suspension
Suspension refers to actions taken against both teachers and students. Suspension is defined in the School Code for teachers and students. The courts have judicially defined suspension in two additional ways regarding teachers. Each of these four meanings is discussed below.
Teachers
Furlough
In the School Code, 24 PS § 11-1125.1, suspension in regards to teachers means furlough or "lay off" of professional employes, which is the meaning stressed in dicta by Commonwealth Court "….we have held that a suspension is in the nature of an impermanent separation: a furlough or layoff." Norwin School District v. Chlodney, 37 Pa. Commw. 284, 286, 390 A.2d 328, 330 (1978). Such suspensions may be only for those reasons stated in 24 PS § 11-1124, and the due process protections of § 11-1225.1 must be provided. In Hritz v. Laurel Highlands School District, 167 Pa. Commw. 353, 648 A.2d 108 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), Commonwealth Court explained the difference between a suspension and a demotion.
Suspension prior to a hearing for dismissal
Although not mentioned in the School Code, the courts have decided that the board of school directors has the power to suspend a professional employe without pay prior to a dismissal hearing. In Board of Education of the School District of Philadelphia v. Kushner, 109 Pa Commw. 120, 530 A.2d 541 (1987), Commonwealth Court discussed pre-hearing suspension:
We begin by considering whether or not the District was permitted to suspend the teacher without pay before it held a hearing.
It is, of course, well settled that a suspension for cause pending a hearing is permissible where the teacher's conduct is potentially harmful to the safety of the children. Kaplan v. Philadelphia School District, 388 Pa. 213, 130 A.2d 672 (1957); Board of School Directors of the Eastern York School District v. Fasnacht, 64 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 571, 441 A.2d 481 (1982). Kaplan involved a teacher who was suspended after refusing to answer questions pertaining to alleged activities in the Communist party. Fasnacht involved a teacher of mentally retarded students who was suspended for failure to comply with lesson plan policy, inadequate preparation of individualized education programs, and sleeping in class.
The instant case involves a teacher whose classroom was said to be littered with sunflower seeds, paper, "junk," and whose classroom walls and furniture were said to be covered with graffiti. Further, the teacher was said to have failed to plan her lessons, to give directions to students, and, significantly, to maintain order. It is her contention that said failings, even if they existed, do not pose such a possibility of harm to the students as to justify a pre-hearing suspension. We respectfully disagree.
First, we must note that "the maintenance of a public school system is primarily for the education and training of our youth and the incidental financial benefit of those participating therein is of secondary concern." School District of Philadelphia v. Twer, 498 Pa. 429, 435, 447 A.2d 222, 224 (1982). Second, we do not read Kaplan and Fasnacht to permit suspension without hearing only in the most draconian situations. Here, the District found that the teacher was unable to maintain order in the classroom. Such a fact leads to the conclusion that a very real potential for harm existed. Accordingly, we believe the suspension was permissible under established case law. Additionally, we note that any harm resulting from an improper suspension of a teacher can be significantly reduced by an award of back pay for the period of improper suspension. See Twer. We must hold, therefore, that the Secretary erred in concluding that a suspension prior to a hearing was improper.
530 A.2d at 543-544. An appeal of a pre-hearing suspension is to the court of common pleas and then to Commonwealth Court. The remedy for an improper suspension is an award of back pay for the period of the suspension.
Disciplinary suspension
Suspension for discipline also is not mentioned in the School Code but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has determined that the board of school directors has the authority to impose a disciplinary suspension without pay or other benefits after a dismissal hearing even when there were not enough votes to suspend. Such a suspension is a temporary form of discipline. In Rike v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et. al., 508 Pa. 190, 494 A.2d 1388 (1985), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court described the power of the board of school directors to impose a disciplinary suspension on a professional employe:
Rike's argument that the Board was without power to suspend after conducting a hearing pursuant to Sections 1122 and 1127 is likewise without merit. That a board of school directors possesses the authority to impose lesser forms of discipline than complete termination of a tenured teacher's contract is by now beyond question. The general assembly, in whom our constitution reposes the responsibility of establishing the parameters of administering the education of our youth, PA CONST. Art. III, Section 14, has created school districts and imbued them with "all necessary powers to enable them to carry out the provisions of this act," 24 P.S. § 2-211, including the power to employ teachers, 24 P.S. § 11-1106. Inherent in the school district's power to employ is the power to control certain activities of teachers, Kaplan v. Philadelphia School District, 38 Pa. 213, 130 A.2d 672 (1957). As stated by Mr. Justice (now Chief Justice) Nix in Neshaminy Fed. Of Teachers v. Neshaminy School District, 501 Pa. 534, 545, 462 A.2d 629, 635 (1983): "The power to regulate conduct, of course, would be illusory absent a concomitant power to enforce rules through the imposition of some form of discipline."
……………………………
Rike argues it was improper for the Board to impose a suspension by vote of less than the number required to effect a dismissal. We view this assertion as being without merit.
The teacher tenure provisions of the Public School Code were enacted to improve public education by protecting teachers from ouster without cause at the complete and unbridled discretion of school boards. In re: Swink, 132 Pa.Super. 107, 200 A. 200 (1938). To this end, the general assembly provided that contracts of tenured teachers could only be terminated after observance of certain prescribed procedural safeguards. One of these provisions is that no teacher's dismissal may be effected without approval of two-thirds of the entire board. 24 P.S. § 11-1129. In contrast to the clear expression of legislative intent that the most drastic form of discipline be accomplished only with the approval of two-thirds of the entire board, the Public School Code is totally silent as to what protections must be afforded tenured teachers prior to the imposition of lesser forms of discipline. If the legislature intended to require two-thirds approval of the board every time a teacher is disciplined, they could have inserted such a provision in the Code. Their not having done so, we cannot add it, and thus we cannot embrace Rike's suggestion that tenured teachers cannot be disciplined on the vote of a simple majority of the entire board.
494 A.2d at 1391-1392. An appeal of a pre-hearing suspension is to the court of common pleas and then to Commonwealth Court.
Student Suspension
Section 13-1318 of the School Code authorizes a "principal or teacher in charge of a public school" to "temporarily suspend any pupil on account of disobedience or misconduct." Suspension is exclusion from school for a period of one to ten consecutive school days. Suspensions may be in school or out-of-school. The regulations of the State Board of Education contain provisions concerning suspension at 22 Pa Code § 12.6(1) Unless there is a threat to the school community, a student must be informed of the reasons for the suspension and given an opportunity to respond. The parents and school superintendent must be given immediate written notification when the student is suspended. Suspensions may not run consecutively beyond the ten-day period. If the suspension exceeds three days, the student and parents must be given an opportunity for an informal hearing.
School Code 24 PS §§ 11-1124, 11-1125.1, 13-1308
Regulations of the State Board of Education 22 PA Code § 12.6(1)
Case Law
Rike v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et. al., 508 Pa. 190, 494 A.2d 1388 (1985)
Kaplan v. Philadelphia School District, 388 Pa. 213, 130 A.2d 672 (Pa. Cmwlth., 1957)
Board of School Directors of the Eastern York School District v. Fasnacht, 64 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 571, 441 A.2d 481 (Pa. Cwmlth., 1982)