В§ 125.17 (1990) is the teacher tenure act that applies to all school districts in cities of the first class. We granted the school district's petition for further review. The court of appeals, in an unpublished opinion, agreed that a hearing was necessary to determine whether or not respondent was a 'teacher,' and remanded the case to the school board. The school district refused to hold a hearing, and respondent sought review by certiorari to the court of appeals. At the very least, respondent claimed he was entitled to a hearing on his job status so a proper record could be made for an appeal. He claimed he had a continuing contract with the district as associate superintendent, and that he was entitled to a hearing before any reassignment. Respondent took the principalship, but reserved the right to pursue his asserted tenure rights. In a letter to respondent prior to the reorganization, the superintendent explained that 'the new leadership * * * provided will be critical to my administration and the accomplishment of the Board's mission and goal statements.' Thus, a purpose of the restructuring was to bring new talent and energy to the administration in pursuit of newly adopted school district policies and goals. This meant a reduction in respondent's pay and benefits. Respondent Frye's requests were not honored instead, respondent was unilaterally reassigned by the superintendent to the position of principal at the Area Learning Center. Consequently, he asked that he be assigned to the new position of Assistant Superintendent, Teaching and Learning or, alternatively, that he be allowed to bump to one of the other positions in the 'superintendency' department. Respondent contended he was a 'teacher' within the meaning of the Tenure Act while serving as associate superintendent. In their place, three new positions were created: Assistant Superintendent, Teaching and Learning Assistant Superintendent, Planning and Support Services and Assistant Superintendent, Fiscal Affairs and Operations. Respondent's position was abolished, as was the companion position of Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. In June 1991 the school board approved the new superintendent's restructuring of the school district's administration. These appointments were for no definite term. In 1987, he was further promoted to Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction. In 1983, respondent was appointed Director of Secondary Curriculum and Instruction. Paul) for more than 30 years, serving as teacher, counselor, assistant principal and principal.

Frye has been employed by appellant Independent School District No.

Paul School District, was not, as a matter of law, a teacher for purposes of the Teacher Tenure Act we reverse the court of appeals' decision remanding the case for a factfinding hearing.

We conclude respondent, an employee of the St. Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc. Paul, Minnesota, Petitioner, Appellant.ДЄs Amended on Denial of Rehearing February 3, 1993.

Frye principal definition