Facts of the Case

 James Newell was a teacher of consumer electronics at the Wilkes-Barre Area Vocational Technical School (WBAVTS).  The Joint Operating Committee (JOC) notified Newell in writing that due to decreasing enrollment, the two electronics courses at WBAVTS would be combined and Newell would be suspended because he had the least seniority.  Newell requested a hearing.  The JOC affirmed his suspension.  Newell petitioned the common pleas court to review the adjudication.  The common pleas court dismissed the petition holding that Newell's suspension was proper under both section 1124(1) and section 1124(2) of the Public School Code of 1949(School Code), Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, 24 P.S. SS 11-1124(1) and (2).  Newell petitioned the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania contending:

  . . . that his suspension was improper under section 1124(1) of the School Code because: (1)  there had been an increase in student enrollment at the time Newell was suspended; and (2)  and the computation of a cumulative decrease in enrollment was based upon an unreasonable time period.(1192)

The argument was heard 4 December 1995.

Decision of the Court

 On 25 January 1996, Commonwealth Court affirmed the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, dated 7 May 1995, which dismissed Newell's petition and upheld the action of the WBAVTS' JOC which suspended Newell from its service due to declining enrollment.  The Court held that Newell's suspension was justified under section 1124(1) of the School Code by a 36.6% decline in student enrollment over a ten-year period.

Basis for the Decision

 The Court based its decision upon enrollment data and the testimony of Dr. O'Donnell,  the Administrative Director of WBATVS, holding  there was substantial evidence to support the JOC's decision to suspend Newell pursuant to section 1124(1) of the School Code.  The Court also cited two cases:

  In Smith [v. Board of Directors of Harmony Area School District, 16 Pa. Cmwlth. 175, 328 A. 2d 883 (1974) ], we held that a net loss of 114 students,  representing 16% of the 724 students initially enrolled in    the school district was substantial.  In Bachak v. Lakeland School District, 664 A. 2d 12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) , however,  we held that use of a ten-year period was not justified.... where use of that time frame resulted in a 20% decline in a student enrollment of 2,000, while use of a seven-year time period yielded a decline of only 4.4%....The size of WBAVTS' student enrollment lies somewhere between that of the districts in Smith    and Bachak.  Using the ten-year period prior to Newell's suspension, we note hat WBATVS had an actual loss of 508 students, representing a 36.6% decline. Clearly, although  the size of the district here was greater than that in Smith, and smaller than Bachak, the enrollment loss in terms of   actual numbers and percentages was considerably greater than existed in either of those cases.  Therefore, Newell's suspension from WBATVS was consistent with both Smith and Bachak. ( 1193 )
 

Written by Mary John and Ben Ruby, July 1997