February 8, 2012

Coaching Vacancies in Public Education, Who Gets the Vacant Position?

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

A common issue always arising among West Virginia county boards of education relates to the filling of coaching positions in public schools. For example, does a citizen (non-employee) receive a coaching position over a currently certified professional educator? Does a professional educator receive a coaching position over a substitute employee? Does a professional educator in the home county receive priority over a professional education in an adjoining county? What is the impact of an employee who is on permit? Does a service personnel employee have any rights to be a coach?

The purpose of this month's education law newsletter is to provide some pointers to county boards of education as it relates to these common issues.
 

  • A certified professional educator generally has priority in coaching vacancies. However, a substitute who is certified is equal to a certified regular employed professional educator. As such, a board of education does not violate W. Va. Code § 18A-3-2a when it hires a substitute teacher over a regularly employed teacher to fill a coaching position. Halley v. Boone County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 00-03-329 (Apr. 4, 2001).

     

  • An employee possessing a teaching permit cannot receive a coaching position over a currently employed certified professional educator who has applied for the position or a certified substitute who has applied for the position. Arrington v. Jackson County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 04-18-365 (April 29, 2005).

     

  • W. Va. Code § 18A-3-2a does not provide that the currently employed professional educator has to be an employee of the county in which the job is posted in order to have hiring priority. However, the out-of-county teacher must be able to meet the scheduling demands of the coaching position in order to be hired for it.

     

  • W. Va. Code 18A-3-2a(4) states, in part: " . . . the state superintendent may issue certificates for persons to serve in the public schools as athletic coaches or other extracurricular activities coaches . . . subject to the following limitations: . . . (B) a currently employed certified professional educator has not applied for the position . . .". As such, coaching certificates may be issued to individuals who are not otherwise employed by a county board of education, but only when a currently employed certified professional educator has not applied for the extracurricular position. But, “coaching positions held by individuals [citizen coaches] who are not currently employed certified professional educators should be posted every year.” State Superintendent Opinion dated June 2, 2003; Shockey v. Preston County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 04-39-045 (July 26, 2004).

     

  • Service personnel employees are eligible to receive coaching authorizations. However, they can only receive the authorization when s/he has been offered employment as a coach and no currently employed professional educator has applied for the position. The service employee must also meet all requirements of West Virginia Board of Education Policy 5202 and W. Va. Code § 18A-3-10. A county board of education cannot refuse to employ a service personnel employee as a coach because of overtime concerns.

     

  • Service employees who hold teaching certificates do not need to hold coaching authorizations in order to be employed as coaches in West Virginia public schools. However, pursuant to W. Va. Code 18A-3-2a, those currently employed professional educators who are fully certified will receive hiring preference over those individuals who possess permits (e.g., sub permits). In other words, the fully certified teacher will always receive preference over individuals possessing only lesser certificates. Arrington v. Jackson County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 04-18-365 (April 29, 2005).

     

  • The standard of review for filling coaching positions is to assess whether the Board abused its broad discretion in the selection or acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Dillon v. Wyoming County Bd. of Educ., 177 W. Va. 145, 351 S.E.2d 58 (1986); Chaffin v. Wayne County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 92-50-398 (July 27, 1993).
© 2012 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Partner

Jason's practice concentrates on two areas of law that are quite diverse from each other. One area of Jason’s practice focuses on enforcing the collection rights and security interests of creditors. In this area of the law, he also has experience in defending creditors and debt collection entities in litigation where claims have been asserted against such entities for alleged violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protect Act (“WVCCPA”) and/or the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In addition, he has experience in defending automobile manufacturers...

304-225-1417
Associate

Jennifer S. Caradine is a member of the Corporate Department. Jennifer's practice focuses on two distinct areas of the law, first she practices real estate law, covering a wide range of matters with emphasis on title, acquisitions, sales and financing, foreclosure and mineral issues.  Jennifer also practices in the area of school law, providing services in areas including, but not limited to, defending special education due process complaints, board of education real estate issues, personnel issues and student rights and discipline.

...

304-225-1430

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.