Appellate Court Upholds CPS' Removal of Principal from Failing School

In Young-Gibson v. Chicago Board of Education, an Illinois appellate court recently held that the Chicago Board of Education is not required to follow the procedures for terminating principals for cause when removing principals from failing schools.  At issue was whether the procedural protections that apply when removing principals for cause under Section 34-85 of the School Code apply when removing a principal under Section 34-8.3.

This case arose after the Chicago Board of Education removed Darreyl Young-Gibson from her position as principal at Percy L. Julian High School for failing to make adequate progress toward correcting the deficiencies that led to Julian High being placed on probation.  Section 34-8.3 of the School Code provides a remediation procedure for failing schools in CPS.  Under this section, the superintendent may place failing schools on probation and require them to follow a school improvement plan.  If the school fails to make adequate progress toward correcting its deficiencies, the superintendent may remove and replace the school's principal.  When the Chicago Board of Education removed Young-Gibson under this section, she sought to reverse its decision in circuit court arguing that she was entitled to the procedural protections that apply when schools seek to remove principals for cause before their performance contract expires.

Although the circuit court agreed with Young-Gibson and ordered her reinstatement, the appellate court held that the Chicago Board of Education is not required to follow the procedures of section 34-85 when removing principals under section 34-8.3.  According to the appellate court, the General Assembly could have easily made section 34-85 applicable if it had wanted to by simply referencing it in section 34-8.3.  However, the General Assembly made no reference to section 34-85.  Because CPS was not required to follow section 34-85 when it removed Young-Gibson, the appellate court upheld its decision and reversed the lower court.