15-536. Offer of contract to probationary teacher; acceptance; notice to teacher of intention not to reemploy; definition
A. On or after March 15 of each year, the governing board shall offer a teaching contract for the next ensuing school year to each probationary teacher, unless the governing board, a member of the governing board acting on behalf of the governing board or the superintendent of the school district gives notice to the teacher of the governing board's intention not to offer a teaching contract or unless such teacher has been dismissed pursuant to section 15-538, 15-539, 15-541 or 15-544. The teacher's acceptance of the contract for the ensuing year must be indicated within fifteen business days after the date of the teacher's receipt of the written contract or the offer is revoked. Receipt under this subsection will be deemed to have occurred when the written contract is personally delivered or placed in the teacher's school provided mailbox, including email, or two days after being placed in a United States postal service mailbox. The teacher accepts the contract by signing the contract and returning it to the governing board or by making a written instrument that accepts the terms of the contract and delivering it to the governing board. If the written instrument includes terms in addition to the terms of the contract offered by the governing board, the teacher fails to accept the contract.
B. Notice of the governing board's intention not to reemploy the teacher shall be by delivering it personally to the teacher or by sending it by registered or certified mail to the teacher at the teacher's place of residence as recorded in the school district records. The notice shall incorporate a statement of reasons for not reemploying the teacher. If the reasons are charges of inadequacy of classroom performance, the governing board or its authorized representative shall give the teacher written preliminary notice of inadequacy, specifying the nature of the inadequacy with such particularity as to furnish the teacher an opportunity to correct the inadequacies and maintain adequate classroom performance as defined by the governing board pursuant to section 15-538, subsection C. The governing board may delegate to employees of the governing board the general authority to issue preliminary notices of inadequacy of classroom performance to teachers pursuant to this subsection without the need for prior approval of each notice by the governing board. In all cases in which an employee of the governing board issues a preliminary notice of inadequacy of classroom performance without prior approval by the governing board, the employee shall report its issuance to the governing board within ten school days. The written notice of intention not to reemploy shall include a copy of any evaluation pertinent to the charges made and filed with the governing board.
C. This section does not provide a probationary teacher with the right to a hearing pursuant to section 15-539, subsection F.
D. A certificated teacher who is currently a continuing teacher as defined in section 15-538.01 but who has been designated after an evaluation conducted according to the requirements pursuant to section 15-537 in the lowest performance classification for the current school year shall become a probationary teacher for the subsequent school year and shall remain a probationary teacher until that teacher's performance classification is designated in either of the two highest performance classifications.
E. For the purposes of this section, "probationary teacher" means a certificated teacher who is not a continuing teacher.
Notes of Decisions
Hale v. Amphitheater Sch. Dist. No. 10, 961 P.2d 1059 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 17× “Hale, whose probationary teacher’s contract was not renewed after her third year of employment with the District, contends the trial court erred in concluding the District complied with the notice of nonrenewal requirements in A.R.S. § 15-536, rejecting her claim for…”
Wheeler v. Yuma Sch. Dist. No. One, 750 P.2d 860 (Ariz. 1988).
· cites it 22× “Neither § 15-536 nor § 15-538 contains any language that would exempt the District from the statutory notice requirement simply because the probationary teacher is hired late in the year.”
Neary v. Frantz, 685 P.2d 1323 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 12× “In addition, A.R.S. § 15-536 (amended by Laws 1983, ch.”
Bowman v. Bd. of Regents, 785 P.2d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “This is in stark contrast to A.R.S. § 15-536(A), the statute involved in Walker v.”
Wheeler v. Yuma Sch. Dist. No. One, 750 P.2d 857 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 9× “It further states that communication with parents can enable the teacher to more properly assist the child in the classroom and may provide parents with information which they may use to assist their child at home.”
Paczosa v. Cartwright Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 83, 213 P.3d 222 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 15-536, -538.01. Instead, the statutes provide for the guaranteed re-employment of a “certificated teacher who has been employed by the school district for more than the major portion of three consecutive school years.”
Cooner v. Bd. of Educ., 663 P.2d 1002 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “§ 15-252 (now A.R.S. § 15-536), was given to her. There is no contention here that the formulation of the intention not to renew the contract was not made at the public meeting.”
Prichard v. Bd. of Educ., 705 P.2d 473 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 3× “1, § 1; now A.R.S. § 15-536(B) and § 15-538(A) as amended by Laws 1983, Ch.”
Ramsay v. Sierra Vista Unified Sch. Dist. No. 68, 697 P.2d 343 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 11× “Baker, wrote Ramsay the following letter: “Pursuant to ARS 15-536, you no longer have a continuing teacher’s contract with the Sierra Vista Public Schools Unified District No.”
Britt v. Red Mesa Unified Sch. Dist. No. 27, 748 P.2d 1195 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 15-536. Therefore, if Britt had remained in the Chinle District, where she was a continuing teacher, she would have been entitled to a hearing pursuant to A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-536(A) — 4 cases
Hale v. Amphitheater Sch. Dist. No. 10, 961 P.2d 1059 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“Hale, whose probationary teacher’s contract was not renewed after her third year of employment with the District, contends the trial court erred in concluding the District complied with the notice of nonrenewal requirements in A.R.S. § 15-536, rejecting her claim for…”
Bowman v. Bd. of Regents, 785 P.2d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
“This is in stark contrast to A.R.S. § 15-536(A), the statute involved in Walker v.”
Ramsay v. Sierra Vista Unified Sch. Dist. No. 68, 697 P.2d 343 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“Baker, wrote Ramsay the following letter: “Pursuant to ARS 15-536, you no longer have a continuing teacher’s contract with the Sierra Vista Public Schools Unified District No.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-536(B) — 5 cases
Wheeler v. Yuma Sch. Dist. No. One, 750 P.2d 860 (Ariz. 1988).
“Neither § 15-536 nor § 15-538 contains any language that would exempt the District from the statutory notice requirement simply because the probationary teacher is hired late in the year.”
Wheeler v. Yuma Sch. Dist. No. One, 750 P.2d 857 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“It further states that communication with parents can enable the teacher to more properly assist the child in the classroom and may provide parents with information which they may use to assist their child at home.”
Hale v. Amphitheater Sch. Dist. No. 10, 961 P.2d 1059 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“Hale, whose probationary teacher’s contract was not renewed after her third year of employment with the District, contends the trial court erred in concluding the District complied with the notice of nonrenewal requirements in A.R.S. § 15-536, rejecting her claim for…”
Prichard v. Bd. of Educ., 705 P.2d 473 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“1, § 1; now A.R.S. § 15-536(B) and § 15-538(A) as amended by Laws 1983, Ch.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-536(C) — 1 case
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.