Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-257 (2026)
Employee evaluation system
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
15-257. Employee evaluation system
The superintendent of public instruction may establish a system to evaluate the performance of employees of the department of education.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1965–1979 · leading case: Carlson v. Sch. Dist. No. 6 of Maricopa Cty., 468 P.2d 944 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970).
Carlson v. Sch. Dist. No. 6 of Maricopa Cty., 468 P.2d 944 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). “Although both appellants and appellee in their statements of the question presented refer only to A.R.S. § 15-257, a provision in the teachers’ tenure act, it is apparent from the arguments in both briefs and from the trial court’s findings, that appel-lee also relies upon the…”
Taft v. Bean, 538 P.2d 1165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975). “They allege that the Boards attempted to alter the double increment pay raise in violation of the contracts and § 15-257, A.R.S.: “§ 15-257. Limitations upon reduction of salaries or personnel “Nothing in this article shall be interpreted to prevent a school board from reducing…”
McEldowney v. Osborn Sch. Dist. No. 8, 600 P.2d 29 (Ariz. 1979). “Appellant signed the contract under protest, and brought this suit, alleging that because of the progress of inflation, she was receiving a reduction in salary in violation of A.R.S. §§ 15-257 and 15-444.02(E). Appellant also sought to recover from the School District attorney’s…”
Bd. of Educ., Tucson Hs Dist. No. 1 v. Williams, 403 P.2d 324 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965). “" [Emphasis supplied] A.R.S. § 15-257 [in part]: "Nothing in this article shall be interpreted to prevent a school board from reducing salaries or eliminating teachers in a school district in order to effectuate economies in the operation of the district or to improve the…”
Boyce v. Royal Oak Bd. of Educ., 285 N.W.2d 196 (Mich. 1979). “…than an aifirmative grant of authority which the board would not otherwise have. 11 See Ala Code, tit 52, § 358, Ariz Rev Stat § 15-257, Colo Rev Stat § 22-63-102(3), Ga Code Ann § 32-2101c(a)(6), Hawaii Rev Stat § 297-11, Burns Ind Stat Ann (1978 Cum Supp), §…”
Austin v. Benefield, 230 S.E.2d 16 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976). “§ 15-257 (1956), a section of the Teacher’s Tenure Act, which read in part, "Nothing in this article shall be interpreted to prevent a school board from reducing salaries or eliminating teachers in a school district in order to effectuate economies in the operation of the…”
Pima Coll. v. Sinclair, 496 P.2d 639 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972). “1971— 72) provides in part: “Subject to the provisions of § 15-257,. the contract of employment of a pro- *215 Tat'ionary or continuing teacher for a ■school year shall be deemed automatical^ renewed for the next ensuing school year, unless, on or before March 15 immedi-ately…”
Tsakiris v. Phoenix Union High Sch. Sys., 502 P.2d 1093 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972). “Subject to the provisions of § 15-257, the contract of employment of a probationary or continuing teacher for a school year shall be deemed automatically renewed for the next ensuing school year, unless, on or before March 15 immediately preceding the ensuing school year, the…”
Bd. of Educ. v. Williams, 403 P.2d 324 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965). “” [Emphasis supplied] A.R.S. § 15-257 [in part]: “Nothing in this article shall be interpreted to prevent a school board from reducing salaries or eliminating teachers in a school district in order to effectuate economies in the operation of the district or to improve the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.