Carolyn Shegelski and Mary Rose Grochowski, Appellants, v. Mid Valley School District,
Respondant, Pa. Cmwlth., 677 A 2d 367 (1996)

Shegelski and Grochowski were teachers at the Mid Valley School District. The school board decided to suspend the teachers due to declining enrollment in their classes. The suspension at issue, pursuant to Section 11-1124(2) of the Public School Code of 1949 (Code), occurred on December 19, 1992. Dr. Shegelski had been suspended earlier for the 1991-1992 school year, but this suspension was held to be invalid. When the case was appealed to the court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County which ruled that the curtailment of the education must be approved by the Department of Education (DOE), Dr. Shegelski was given back pay but not reinstated. Mrs. Grochowski was notified of her suspension on June 30, 1992, and after a hearing she was granted back pay, because her suspension, like Shegelski's, had not been approved by the DOE.

Following the court's reversal of Dr. Shegelski's first suspension, the district got permission from the DOE to alter or curtail its business education program. The Appellants were suspended by the district again and hearings were held by the school board. The board upheld the suspensions and this time the trial court affirmed the decision.

On appeal the Appellants raised two issues for the Commonwealth Court to review:

...whether the trial court erred by affirming Appellants' suspensions when
there was no evidence of a current decline in course enrollment, and whether
(2) Appellant's due process were violated when the Board first suspended
Appellants then acted in an adjudicatory role in reviewing the propriety of
their suspension. (369)

Shegelski and Grochowski first cited Bristol Township School District v. Karafin,
508 Pa 409, 498 A.2d 824 (1985) contending that:

...the correct time to determine whether a suspension, which is based on a
decline in student enrollment, is warranted is at the time the suspension was
effective, and, . . . evidence from the prior year of declining enrollment was
insufficient to predict the enrollment or the Districts need for teachers in a
future year. (369)

The Appellants claimed that because the courses they taught had already been curtailed at the time of their second suspension, there was no evidence of a current decline, and thus the suspensions must be deemed void.

The argument was heard on April 16, 1996

Decision of the Court

On June 3, 1996, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County "denying Appellant's petition for review of their suspensions." (370)

Basis for the Decision

The court held that evidence from the proceeding school year of declining enrollment in the business program and courses taught by the teachers was sufficient to support the school board's suspension decision. The court disagreed that the suspensions were invalid because the evidence that was used was not current information. There was documented enrollment decreases in the school over three successive years with nine of thirteen classes showing a twenty percent decrease. This evidence supported claims of enrollment decrease, particularly in the courses taught by Shegelski and Grochowski.

The Court based its judgment on the "declining student enrollment" question on Pennzenstadler v. Avonsworth School District, 43 Pa.Cmwlth. 571, 403 A.2d 621, 623 (1979); where it quoted its decision in Phillippi v. School District of Springfield Township:

. . . whether or not a decline in class enrollment necessitate a curtailment of
the educational program "is an area in which school boards must exercise dis-
cretion and board action will not be disturbed absent a showing that action was
arbitrary, basis on a misconception of law or ignorance of the facts. (370)

The court based its decision on the due process question on a recent Supreme Court case Krupinski v. Vocational Technical Schools, Eastern Northhampton County
___PA___, 674, A.2d 683 (1996). Where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held:

. . . that the suspension of teacher as a result of decreasing enrollments pursuant
to section 1124(2) of the code was non-disciplinary in nature. Unlike the dis-
ciplinary action taken by the Board of Medicine in Lyness [v. Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine, 539 Pa - 535, 605 A.2d 1204 (1992)], the teachers suspension was not based on changes stemming from some action or inaction by her, and in approving the elimination of her courses and her position, the board was not acting in a prosecutorial capacity. Thus, the Krupinski court held thatpotential for bias from commingling of prosecutorial and adjudicatory roles, as
was the concern in Lyness, was not present in the appeal. (370)

The court held that there was no merit of the Appellant's arguments.

Decided June 3, 1996

Written by Patrick Feeley and Doris Pick