Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 33-513 (2026)

Professional personnel.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Professional personnel.

The board of trustees of each school district, including any specially chartered district, shall have the following powers and duties:

1. To employ professional personnel, on written contract in form approved by the state superintendent of public instruction, conditioned upon a valid certificate being held by such professional personnel at the time of entering upon the duties thereunder. Should the board of trustees fail to enter into written contract for the employment of any such person, the state superintendent of public instruction shall withhold ensuing apportionments until such written contract be entered into. When the board of trustees has delivered a proposed contract for the next ensuing year to any such person, such person shall have a period of time to be determined by the board of trustees in its discretion, but in no event less than ten (10) calendar days from the date the contract is delivered, in which to sign the contract and return it to the board. If the board of trustees does not make a determination as to how long the person has to sign and return the contract, the default time limit shall be twenty-one (21) calendar days after the contract is delivered to the person. Delivery of a contract may be made only in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested or electronically, return receipt requested. When delivery is made in person, delivery of the contract must be acknowledged by a signed receipt. When delivery is made by certified mail or electronically, delivery must be acknowledged by the return of the certified mail receipt or return electronic receipt from the person to whom the contract was sent. If the delivery is made electronically, with return electronic receipt, and the district has not received a return of a signed contract and has not received an electronic read receipt from the employee, the district shall then resend the original electronically delivered contract to the employee via certified mail, return receipt requested, and provide such individual with a new date for contract return. Should the person willfully refuse to acknowledge receipt of the contract or the contract is not signed and returned to the board in the designated period of time or if no designated period of time is set by the board, the default time, the board or its designee may declare the position vacant.

The board of trustees shall withhold the salary of any teacher who does not hold a teaching certificate valid in this state. It shall not contract to require any teacher to make up time spent in attending any meeting called by the state board of education or by the state superintendent of public instruction; nor while attending regularly scheduled official meetings of the state teachers association.

No contract shall be issued for the next ensuing year until such time as the employee’s formal written performance evaluation has been completed.

If applicable student data relating to Idaho’s standards achievement test has not been received by the district within thirty (30) days of the deadline to complete the formal written performance evaluation for district employees, the school district or charter school shall utilize one (1) of the other objective measures of growth in student achievement as determined by the board of trustees or governing board, not including Idaho’s standards achievement test, in order to complete the required student achievement component of performance evaluations.

2. In the case of school districts other than elementary school districts, to employ a superintendent of schools for a term not to exceed three (3) years, who shall be the executive officer of the board of trustees with such powers and duties as the board may prescribe. The superintendent shall also act as the authorized representative of the district whenever such is required, unless some other person shall be named by the board of trustees to act as its authorized representative. The board of trustees shall conduct an annual, written formal evaluation of the work of the superintendent of the district to be completed no later than June 1. The evaluation shall indicate the strengths and weaknesses of the superintendent’s job performance in the year immediately preceding the evaluation and areas where improvement in the superintendent’s job performance, in the view of the board of trustees, is called for.

3. To employ through written contract principals who shall hold a valid certificate appropriate to the position for which they are employed, who shall supervise the operation and management of the school in accordance with the policies established by the board of trustees and who shall be under the supervision of the superintendent.

4. To employ assistant superintendents and principals for a term not to exceed two (2) years. Service performed under such contract shall be included in meeting the provisions of section 33-515, Idaho Code, as a teacher and persons eligible for a renewable contract as a teacher shall retain such eligibility. The superintendent, the superintendent’s designee, or in a school district that does not employ a superintendent, the board of trustees, shall conduct an annual, written evaluation of each such employee’s performance to be completed no later than June 1.

5. To suspend, grant leave of absence, place on probation or discharge certificated professional personnel for a material violation of any lawful rules or regulations of the board of trustees or of the state board of education, or for any conduct which could constitute grounds for revocation of a teaching certificate. Any certificated professional employee, except the superintendent, may be discharged during a contract term under the following procedures:

(a) The superintendent or any other duly authorized administrative officer of the school district may recommend the discharge of any certificated employee by filing with the board of trustees written notice specifying the alleged reasons for discharge.

(b) Upon receipt of such notice, the board, acting through its duly authorized administrative official, shall give the affected employee written notice of the allegations and the recommendation of discharge, along with written notice of a hearing before the board prior to any determination by the board of the truth of the allegations.

(c) The hearing shall be scheduled to take place not less than six (6) days nor more than twenty-one (21) days after receipt of the notice by the employee. The date provided for the hearing may be changed by mutual consent.

(d) The hearing shall be public unless the employee requests in writing that it be in executive session.

(e) All testimony at the hearing shall be given under oath or affirmation. Any member of the board, or the clerk of the board, may administer oaths to witnesses or affirmations by witnesses.

(f) The employee may be represented by legal counsel and/or by a representative of a local or state teachers association.

(g) The chairman of the board or the designee of the chairman shall conduct the hearing.

(h) The board shall cause an electronic record of the hearing to be made or shall employ a competent reporter to take stenographic or stenotype notes of all the testimony at the hearing. A transcript of the hearing shall be provided at cost by the board upon request of the employee.

(i) At the hearing, the superintendent or other duly authorized administrative officer shall present evidence to substantiate the allegations contained in such notice.

(j) The employee may produce evidence to refute the allegations. Any witness presented by the superintendent or by the employee shall be subject to cross-examination. The board may also examine witnesses and be represented by counsel.

(k) The affected employee may file written briefs and arguments with the board within three (3) days after the close of the hearing or such other time as may be agreed upon by the affected employee and the board.

(l) Within fifteen (15) days following the close of the hearing, the board shall determine and, acting through its duly authorized administrative official, shall notify the employee in writing whether the evidence presented at the hearing established the truth of the allegations and whether the employee is to be retained, immediately discharged, or discharged upon termination of the current contract.

(m) If the employee appeals the decision of the board of trustees to the district court, the district court may affirm the board’s decision or set it aside and remand the matter to the board of trustees upon the following grounds and shall not set the same aside for any other grounds:

(i) That the findings of fact are not based upon any substantial, competent evidence;

(ii) That the board of trustees has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its authority; or

(iii) That the findings by the board of trustees as a matter of law do not support the decision.

(n) The determination of the board of trustees shall be affirmed unless the court finds that the action of the board of trustees was:

(i) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(ii) In excess of the statutory authority of the board;

(iii) Made upon unlawful procedure; or

(iv) Arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.

(o) Record augmentation on appeal:

(i) If, before the date set for any hearing at the district court, application is made to the court for leave to present additional evidence and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material, relates to the validity of the board action and that there was good cause for failure to present it in the proceeding before the board, then the court may remand the matter to the board with direction that the board receive additional evidence and conduct additional fact-finding;

(ii) Any party desiring to augment the transcript or record may file a motion in the same manner and pursuant to the same procedure for augmentation of the record in appeals to the supreme court; and

(iii) The board may modify its action by reason of the additional evidence and shall file any modifications, new findings or decisions with the reviewing court.

6. To grant an employee’s request for voluntary leave of absence. The board of trustees may delegate ongoing authority to grant an employee’s request for voluntary leave of absence to the district’s superintendent or other designee. Upon the superintendent or designee’s granting of an employee’s request for voluntary leave of absence, the board shall ratify or nullify the action at the next regularly scheduled board meeting.

7. To delegate to the superintendent or other designee the ongoing authority to place any employee on a period of involuntary leave of absence should the superintendent or designee believe that such action is in the best interest of the district. Upon the superintendent or designee’s action to place a certificated employee on a period of involuntary leave of absence, the board shall ratify or nullify the action of the superintendent or designee at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the board or at a special meeting of the board should the next regularly scheduled meeting of the board not be within a period of twenty-one (21) days from the date of the action.

(a) Where there is a criminal court order preventing the certificated employee from being in the presence of minors or students, preventing the employee from being in the presence of any other adult individual employed at the school or detaining the employee in prison or jail, the certificated employee’s involuntary leave of absence shall be without pay due to the certificated employee’s inability to perform the essential functions of the employee’s position. Without such a condition or situation, the involuntary leave of absence shall be with pay.

(i) During the period of involuntary leave of absence without pay, the salary of the certificated employee will be maintained in a district-managed account. Should the certificated employee return to the district for active employment subsequent to the removal or dismissal of the court order, acquittal or adjudication of innocence, the district shall remit the salary funds, less the cost incurred by the district for the substitute hired to replace the certificated employee. Further, should the certificated employee return to the district under the provisions established in this subsection, the district shall arrange to have the certificated employee credited with the public employee retirement system of Idaho (PERSI) for the certificated employee’s time away from work during the period of leave of absence.

(ii) During the period of involuntary leave of absence, the district shall continue to pay the district’s portion of monthly costs associated with the certificated employee’s health insurance benefits. The assumption of this payment by the district shall not alter the certificated employee’s financial obligations, if any, under the policy.

(b) Should there be dual court orders preventing more than one (1) employee from being in the presence of one (1) or more other employees, all employees subject to the court order shall be excluded from the school pursuant to subsection 7.(a) of this section.

(c) If the period of involuntary leave of absence is due to the district’s need to conduct an investigation into the conduct of the certificated employee, and there are no related criminal investigation(s) and/or criminal charges of any nature pending, the administration shall complete its investigation within a period of sixty (60) working days. On or before the sixtieth working day, the administrative leave shall either cease and the certificated employee shall be returned to his position of employment or the administration shall advance a personnel recommendation to the board of trustees. If a recommendation is advanced, the involuntary leave of absence shall continue until such time as the district board has made its decision in regard to the personnel recommendation with such decision effectively concluding the involuntary leave of absence. If a related criminal investigation is occurring and/or criminal charges are pending, the district shall not be bound to any limitation as to the duration of involuntary leave of absence. The timelines established in this section may be waived or modified by mutual agreement.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases, 1952–2015 · leading case: Nampa Educ. Ass'n v. Nampa Sch. Dist. No. 131, 343 P.3d 1094 (Idaho 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nampa Educ. Ass'n v. Nampa Sch. Dist. No. 131, 343 P.3d 1094 (Idaho 2015). · cites it 40× “On the merits, the court held that the addenda modified the terms of the teachers’ contracts in violation of Idaho Code section 33-513 because the addenda had not been approved by the state superintendent of public instruction.”

Loftus v. Snake River Sch. Dist., 942 P.2d 550 (Idaho 1997). · cites it 44× “Idaho Code § 33-513 provides that the Board shall have the following powers and duties: .”

Kolp v. Bd. of Trs. of Butte Cty. Jt., 629 P.2d 1153 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 20× “The legislature in I.C. § 33-513 carefully provided procedural due process to teachers threatened with dismissal.”

Ferguson v. Bd. of Trs. of Bonner Cty. Sch., 564 P.2d 971 (Idaho 1977). · cites it 14× “In a memorandum opinion, the district court concluded that the school board had substantially complied with I.C. § 33-513(4) 1 and the procedures adopted by the State Board of Education, and also that the board of trustees would have proceeded with the hearing if Ferguson had…”

Knudson v. Boundary Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 101, 656 P.2d 753 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 29× “2 Section 33-513 generally enumerates the powers and duties of school boards with respect to professional personnel employed by the school districts.”

Bowler v. Bd. of Trs. of Sch. Dist. No. 392, 617 P.2d 841 (Idaho 1980). · cites it 12× “The State Board of Education had adopted those procedures pursuant to a grant of legislative authority found in former I.C. § 33-513(4) (amended 1978 Idaho Sess.”

Webster v. Bd. of Trs. of Sch. Dist. No. 25, 659 P.2d 96 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 148× “"In sum, the legislative history of Idaho Code § 33-513 (5) shows that the legislature amended the above section several times to establish a course of conduct to be followed by school districts in supervising and upgrading the teaching profession, especially for those teachers…”

Bear Lake Educ. Ass'n v. Bd. of Trs. of Bear Lake Sch. Dist. No. 33, 776 P.2d 452 (Idaho 1989). · cites it 8× “To support its argument, the District refers specifically to I.C. § 33-513 through § 33-515 and contends that the legislature placed upon it the duty and responsibility of employing, retaining and discharging professional personnel pursuant to these statutes, and that being…”

Buhl Educ. Ass'n v. Jt. Sch. Dist. No. 412, 607 P.2d 1070 (Idaho 1980). · cites it 8× “" The contract is a form prepared pursuant to I.C. § 33-513, and states thereon, paragraph 5, "that this contract is subject to the applicable laws of the state of Idaho .”

Brown v. Caldwell Sch. Dist. No. 132, 898 P.2d 43 (Idaho 1995). · cites it 6× “Should the board of trustees fail to enter into [a] written contract for the employment of any such person, the state superintendent of public instruction shall withhold ensuing apportion-ments until such written contract be entered into.”

Robinson v. Jt. Sch. Dist. 150, 596 P.2d 436 (Idaho 1979). · cites it 4× “Robinson an informal review under I.C. § 33-513, which section, however, deals with personnel who have not attained renewable contract status.”

Gunter v. Bd. of Trs., 854 P.2d 253 (Idaho 1993). · cites it 8× “The long standing rule in Idaho is that when the legislature amends a statute, the amendment, absent an express indication to the contrary, is deemed indicative of changed legislative intent.”

Show all 25 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 33-513(1) — 6 cases

Nampa Educ. Ass'n v. Nampa Sch. Dist. No. 131, 343 P.3d 1094 (Idaho 2015). “On the merits, the court held that the addenda modified the terms of the teachers’ contracts in violation of Idaho Code section 33-513 because the addenda had not been approved by the state superintendent of public instruction.”

Bear Lake Educ. Ass'n v. Bd. of Trs. of Bear Lake Sch. Dist. No. 33, 776 P.2d 452 (Idaho 1989). “To support its argument, the District refers specifically to I.C. § 33-513 through § 33-515 and contends that the legislature placed upon it the duty and responsibility of employing, retaining and discharging professional personnel pursuant to these statutes, and that being…”

Rhoades v. Idaho Falls Sch. Dist. No. 91, 965 P.2d 187 (Idaho 1998).

Baker v. Indep. Sch. Dist. of Emmett, 691 P.2d 1223 (Idaho 1984).

Heine v. Sch. Dist. No. 271, 481 P.2d 316 (Idaho 1971).

— Idaho Code § 33-513(2) — 1 case

Robinson v. Jt. Sch. Dist. 150, 596 P.2d 436 (Idaho 1979). “Robinson an informal review under I.C. § 33-513, which section, however, deals with personnel who have not attained renewable contract status.”

— Idaho Code § 33-513(3) — 1 case

Heine v. Sch. Dist. No. 271, 481 P.2d 316 (Idaho 1971).

— Idaho Code § 33-513(4) — 5 cases

Ferguson v. Bd. of Trs. of Bonner Cty. Sch., 564 P.2d 971 (Idaho 1977). “In a memorandum opinion, the district court concluded that the school board had substantially complied with I.C. § 33-513(4) 1 and the procedures adopted by the State Board of Education, and also that the board of trustees would have proceeded with the hearing if Ferguson had…”

Kolp v. Bd. of Trs. of Butte Cty. Jt., 629 P.2d 1153 (Idaho 1981). “The legislature in I.C. § 33-513 carefully provided procedural due process to teachers threatened with dismissal.”

Bowler v. Bd. of Trs. of Sch. Dist. No. 392, 617 P.2d 841 (Idaho 1980). “The State Board of Education had adopted those procedures pursuant to a grant of legislative authority found in former I.C. § 33-513(4) (amended 1978 Idaho Sess.”

Buhl Educ. Ass'n v. Jt. Sch. Dist. No. 412, 607 P.2d 1070 (Idaho 1980). “" The contract is a form prepared pursuant to I.C. § 33-513, and states thereon, paragraph 5, "that this contract is subject to the applicable laws of the state of Idaho .”

Knudson v. Boundary Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 101, 656 P.2d 753 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982). “2 Section 33-513 generally enumerates the powers and duties of school boards with respect to professional personnel employed by the school districts.”

— Idaho Code § 33-513(5) — 5 cases

Webster v. Bd. of Trs. of Sch. Dist. No. 25, 659 P.2d 96 (Idaho 1983). “"In sum, the legislative history of Idaho Code § 33-513 (5) shows that the legislature amended the above section several times to establish a course of conduct to be followed by school districts in supervising and upgrading the teaching profession, especially for those teachers…”

Loftus v. Snake River Sch. Dist., 942 P.2d 550 (Idaho 1997). “Idaho Code § 33-513 provides that the Board shall have the following powers and duties: .”

Lowder v. Minidoka Cnty. Jt. Sch. Dist. No. 331, 979 P.2d 1192 (Idaho 1999).

Knee v. Sch. Dist. No. 139, in Canyon Cty., 676 P.2d 727 (Idaho Ct. App. 1984).

— Idaho Code § 33-513(6) — 4 cases

Gunter v. Bd. of Trs., 854 P.2d 253 (Idaho 1993). “The long standing rule in Idaho is that when the legislature amends a statute, the amendment, absent an express indication to the contrary, is deemed indicative of changed legislative intent.”

Kingsbury v. Genesee Sch. Dist. No. 282, 979 P.2d 1149 (Idaho 1999).

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.