A. The governing board of any school district shall give any certificated teacher notice of intention to dismiss or not to reemploy if such intention is based on charges of inadequacy of classroom performance. The governing board or its authorized representative, at least forty-five instructional days before such notice, shall give the teacher written preliminary notice of inadequacy of classroom performance, specifying the nature thereof with such particularity as to furnish the teacher an opportunity to correct inadequacies and maintain adequate classroom performance as defined by the governing board pursuant to section 15-538, subsection C. A notice of the governing board's intention to dismiss or not to reemploy for inadequacy of classroom performance shall not be issued until the district has completed an observation at the conclusion of a performance improvement plan issued pursuant to subsection B. 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 section 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 to dismiss or not to reemploy shall include a copy of any valid evaluation pertinent to the charges made.
B. The preliminary notice of inadequacy of classroom performance shall be accompanied by a performance improvement plan designed to help the teacher correct inadequacies and demonstrate adequate classroom performance.
C. The governing board shall adopt a definition of inadequacy of classroom performance that aligns with the performance classifications. The governing board's definition may set standards that exceed the standards of the performance classifications and applies to notices issued pursuant to sections 15-536 and 15-537 and this section. The governing board shall develop its definition of inadequacy of classroom performance in consultation with its certificated teachers. The consultation may be accomplished by holding a public hearing, forming an advisory committee or providing teachers the opportunity to respond to a proposed definition.
Notes of Decisions
Wheeler v. Yuma Sch. Dist. No. One, 750 P.2d 860 (Ariz. 1988).
· cites it 4× “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.”
Hale v. Amphitheater Sch. Dist. No. 10, 961 P.2d 1059 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“who is under a contract of employment with the school district for the current school year, unless, on or before April 15, the governing board, a member of the board acting on behalf of the board or the superintendent of the school district gives notice to the teacher of the…”
Neary v. Frantz, 685 P.2d 1323 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “The notice complied with A.R.S. § 15-538 by informing Mr. Neary that he had 90 days in which to rectify various deficiencies in his teaching performance.”
Roberts v. Santa Cruz Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 35, 778 P.2d 1294 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 10× “Second, he contends that the conduct involved constituted “inadequate classroom performance” so that the board was required, pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-538, to provide him with notice of the inadequacies and to allow him a 90-day opportunity to correct them before he could be…”
Prichard v. Bd. of Educ., 705 P.2d 473 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“§ 15-536(B) and § 15-538(A) as amended by Laws 1983, Ch. 281 §§ 6 and 9], 2.”
Walker v. Sierra Vista Unified Sch. Dist. No. 68, 712 P.2d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “On January 3, 1984, pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-538, the appellee provided the appellant with “Preliminary Notice of Inadequate Classroom Performance.”
Britt v. Red Mesa Unified Sch. Dist. No. 27, 748 P.2d 1195 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “§ 15-536 the governing board was required to offer Britt and Parido contracts for the 1984-85 school year and the following school years unless dismissal charges were first served on them and the opportunity of a hearing was accorded each of them, pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 15-538,…”
Pittman v. Gcu (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “¶16 The only statute Pittman cites in this briefing is A.R.S. § 15-538, asserting he should have been given notice before termination of his employment.”
Ramsay v. Sierra Vista Unified Sch. Dist. No. 68, 697 P.2d 343 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“r the current school year, unless, on or before April 15, the governing board, a member thereof acting on behalf of the board or the superintendent of the school district gives notice to the probationary teacher of the board’s intention not to offer a teaching contract or a…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-538(A) — 3 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.”
Prichard v. Bd. of Educ., 705 P.2d 473 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“§ 15-536(B) and § 15-538(A) as amended by Laws 1983, Ch. 281 §§ 6 and 9], 2.”
Roberts v. Santa Cruz Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 35, 778 P.2d 1294 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
“Second, he contends that the conduct involved constituted “inadequate classroom performance” so that the board was required, pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-538, to provide him with notice of the inadequacies and to allow him a 90-day opportunity to correct them before he could be…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-538(B) — 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.