We use cookies to offer you a better browsing experience, provide ads, analyze site traffic, and personalize content. If you continue to use this site, you consent to our use of cookies.
Advice
In Your Corner: MAE Member Advocacy
As MAE’s Member Rights Advocate, I often emphasize to our members the need to honor and uphold the requirements outlined in their contract. By doing so, it provides MAE with the advocacy leverage to demand reciprocity from school districts.
A big shoutout to the Natchez & Adams community. We had an informative session on educator rights.
As MAE’s Member Rights Advocate, I often emphasize to our members the need to honor and uphold the requirements outlined in their contract. By doing so, it provides MAE with the advocacy leverage to demand reciprocity from school districts.
One misconception of the employee contract that we consistently attempt to debunk is the notion that there are circumstances that mandate that a district allow an employee to “resign” from the contractual obligations. Mississippi Code Annotated §37-9-55 states:
Any appointed superintendent, principal or licensed employee in any public school who is under contract to teach or perform other duties and who desires to be released from such contract shall make application in writing to the school board of the school district for release therefrom, in which application the reasons for such release shall be clearly stated. If the board acts favorably upon such application for release, such superintendent, principal or licensed employee shall be released from his contract, and said contract shall be null and void on the date specified in the school board’s order.
While I am unaware of any cases that have interpreted this statute, a strict reading of this law firmly establishes that school districts are accorded sole discretion regarding whether they will choose to release an employee from their contractual obligations. There are several flaws embedded in this statute which are potentially disadvantageous to employees. Most prominently, the lack of definitiveness often gives way to some districts employing unfettered arbitrariness when deciding whether to release employees, which employees, and the reasons underlying their decision. The vast shortage of teachers throughout the state certainly underscores why districts place a premium on retaining highly qualified teachers. However, even when shortages do not necessarily present an immediate issue for a school, I have seen the damage caused when school districts unevenly apply this statute.
Members of the Natchez & Adams community learn about educator rights.
Yet, beyond the legal mechanics and the unstated policy considerations undergirding this statute, the statute fails to take into consideration, in any meaningful way, the effects this statute can have when “life starts life-ing” for individual employees. What happens if an employee is required to take care of an elderly parent? What about the stress caused when one spouse’s job transitions to another state or another part of the state and the district employee’s request to be released is denied? While it would be nonsensical to discount the importance of instructional continuity or the stress placed on other school instructors because of the loss of one teacher, I do not agree that collective concerns always take priority over individual needs, particularly when the employee could not have forecasted the issues prior to executing the employment contract. Moreover, any argument that leniency would give way to widespread release requests is muted by the actual requirements delineated in the statute. Since employees are required to outline the specific reasons for their request for a release, this provides ample opportunity for districts to check the legitimacy of the reasons offered.
For educators, all is not lost. While the burden is clearly on the employee to establish reasons for seeking the release, the process is not as difficult as it seems particularly where districts have established a precedent of allowing employees to be released. Additionally, educators need to gather the relevant documentation to support their request for release. Educators should not be completely discouraged by any initial resistance they receive from administrators or district leaders; many have found success in bringing their requests to be relieved of their contracts before school boards.
Member Rights Advocate, Kenneth Grigsby, leading MAE's "Educator and The Law" Seminar in Natchez.
Educators respect the legality of contracts and faithfully endeavor to adhere to the obligations outlined therein. Yet, invariably, there are unexpected circumstances that demand the recission of the contract. No person is immune to these unpredictable moments in life. In these moments when life starts life-ing, it is the hope and expectation of the Mississippi Association of Educators that contractual legalities defer to common sense and compassion.
Member Rights Advocate, Kenneth Grigsby leading an MAE "Educator and The Law" Seminar in Natchez.
The Penny for Your Thoughts game revealed legal representation as the top priority—another MAE member benefit!
A big shoutout to the Natchez & Adams community. We had an informative session on educator rights.
Learn More
About the Author: Kenneth Grigsby
Kenneth Grigsby is the Member Rights Advocate for the Mississippi Association of Educators (MAE).
Advocating strong public schools for every student and every public school employee
Mississippi Association of Educators (MAE) represents thousands of Mississippians—educators, students, activists, workers, parents, neighbors, friends—who believe in opportunity for all students and in the power of public education to transform lives and create a more just and inclusive society.
