Carol K. Anderson, Relator, vs. Independent School District No. 100, Wrenshall, Respondent.

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1996).

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C5-97-1542

Carol K. Anderson,

Relator,

vs.

Independent School District No. 100, Wrenshall,

Respondent.

 Filed February 17, 1998

 Reversed and remanded

 Crippen, Judge

School Board of Independent School District No. 100

Harley M. Ogata, Minnesota Education Association, 41 Sherburne Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55103 (for relator)

Marguerite N. Doran, Rudy, Gassert, Yetka, Doran & Pritchett, P.A., 123 Avenue C, Cloquet, MN 55720 (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Crippen, Presiding Judge, Schumacher, Judge, and Foley,**

Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. Judge.

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 CRIPPEN, Judge

Relator Carol Anderson, who is currently employed in a half-time teaching position with respondent school district, sought but was refused full-time employment in the 1997-98 school year. Because relator earlier had attained continuing contract rights for a full-time position and because she was not on an unrequested leave of absence, we reverse and remand for reinstatement and back pay.

 FACTS

Prior to the 1992-93 school year, relator's position as a kindergarten teacher varied from full-time to half-time. In the school years 1992-93 and 1993-94, she worked as a full-time kindergarten teacher. In May 1994, the superintendent notified relator that because of the reduction in students, he would recommend at the next board meeting that the kindergarten position be reduced to half-time for the 1994-95 school year and he asked her if she would accept this position. Relator agreed, with the understanding she would retain her rights to a full-time position.

Relator then worked in the half-time kindergarten position beginning in 1994. In the spring of 1997, the principal notified relator that her teaching position would change from a half-time kindergarten position to a half-time Title I position.[3] Judge.

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 CRIPPEN, Judge

Relator Carol Anderson, who is currently employed in a half-time teaching position with respondent school district, sought but was refused full-time employment in the 1997-98 school year. Because relator earlier had attained continuing contract rights for a full-time position and because she was not on an unrequested leave of absence, we reverse and remand for reinstatement and back pay.

 FACTS

Prior to the 1992-93 school year, relator's position as a kindergarten teacher varied from full-time to half-time. In the school years 1992-93 and 1993-94, she worked as a full-time kindergarten teacher. In May 1994, the superintendent notified relator that because of the reduction in students, he would recommend at the next board meeting that the kindergarten position be reduced to half-time for the 1994-95 school year and he asked her if she would accept this position. Relator agreed, with the understanding she would retain her rights to a full-time position.

Relator then worked in the half-time kindergarten position beginning in 1994. In the spring of 1997, the principal notified relator that her teaching position would change from a half-time kindergarten position to a half-time Title I position.[1]

In June, the school district advertised for a half-time third grade teaching position. Relator asserted her right to work full-time and requested the position. The superintendent advised relator that she was assigned to the half-time Title I position, that she could apply for the posted third grade position if she wished, but that she had no right to demand a full-time position. Relator is presently employed in the half-time Title I position.

 D E C I S I O N

We first address relator's tenure[2] status. It is undisputed that immediately before the 1992-93 school year relator had at least a half-time continuing contract position. On appeal, the school district argues that relator's full-time positions in the 1992-93 and 1993-94 school years were merely temporary and did not serve to change her tenure status from half-time to full-time.

The school district is mistaken. There is no language in Minn. Stat. § 125.12 (1996) that recognizes the concept of a "temporary" teacher.[3] After a teacher completes an initial three-year probationary period, "the probationary period in each school district in which the teacher is thereafter employed shall be one year." Minn. Stat. § 125.12, subd. 3. Because relator completed her initial probationary period many years ago, the one-year probationary period applies. When relator worked two consecutive years as a full-time teacher, under operation of law, she attained a full-time continuing contract.

We next address realtor's status while working half-time for three years. When the district initially declined to give relator a full-time position, it contended that she was a teacher on half-time leave and that reinstatement of her full-time status could only occur if she acted before April 1, 1997. Minn. Stat. § 125.12, subd. 6b(i). But the school district did not follow the necessary procedures in 1994 to place relator on unrequested leave of absence under Minn. Stat. § 125.12, subd. 6b. And she is not on a negotiated leave status under Minn. Stat. § 125.12, subd. 6a, because her leave did not result from negotiations between the exclusive bargaining unit and the school district. Relator is in a unique situation of a mutually modified contract. Minn. Stat. § 125.12, subd. 4 ("teacher's contract shall remain in full force and effect, except as modified by mutual consent of the board and the teacher"). The school board must provide a sufficient record showing its actions are justified. Dokmo v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 11, 459 N.W.2d 671, 676 (Minn. 1990). The only interpretation supported by the record is that of a mutual agreement that preserved for relator her continuing right to return to a full-time position.

Because relator's right to return to full-time teaching was denied, we reverse and remand. The school district is ordered to reinstate relator to a full-time position, with back pay from the start of the 1997-98 school year until she is reinstated in her full-time position. See Minn. Stat. § 125.12, subd. 11 ("if judicial review eventuates in reinstatement of the teacher, the board shall pay the teacher all compensation withheld as a result of the termination or dismissal order").

  Reversed and remanded.

[ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

1] Title I is a federally-funded program designed to serve disadvantaged students. 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (1997) (policy and purpose).

[2] "Continuing contract rights" under Minn. Stat. § 125.12 (1996) are the equivalent of "tenure rights" under Minn. Stat. § 125.17 (1996) and the terms are used interchangeably. See Jurkovich v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 708, 478 N.W.2d 232, 233 n.1 (Minn. App. 1991).

[3] We observe that Minn. Stat. § 123.35, subd. 5 (1996), refers to substitute teachers, and we note that the supreme court found an earlier version of Minn. Stat. § 123.35, subd. 5 determinative where a teacher was hired not as a "substitute" but in an emergency to temporarily reduce the student-teacher ratio to a level that would qualify the district for federal funds. Steiner v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 625, 262 N.W.2d 173, 174 (Minn. 1978). If considered a substitute teacher, a status not evident from the record, relator would stand to gain tenure rights because of the duration of her full-time service. Minn. Stat. § 123.35, subd. 5(b).