1. The first three consecutive years of employment of a teacher in the same school district are a probationary period. However, if the teacher has successfully completed a probationary period of employment for another school district located in Iowa, the probationary period in the current district of employment shall not exceed two years. A board of directors may waive the probationary period for any teacher who previously has served a probationary period in another school district and the board may extend the probationary period for an additional year with the consent of the teacher.
2. In the case of the termination of a probationary teacher’s contract, the contract may be terminated by the board of directors effective at the end of a school year without cause. The superintendent or the superintendent’s designee shall notify the teacher not later than April 30 that the board has voted to terminate the contract effective at the end of the school year. The notice shall be in writing by letter, personally delivered, or mailed by certified mail. The notification shall be complete when received by the teacher. Within ten days after receiving the notice, the teacher may request a private conference with the school board to discuss the reasons for termination. The provisions of sections 279.15 and 279.16 shall not apply to such a termination.
3. The board’s decision shall be final and binding unless the termination was based upon an alleged violation of a constitutionally guaranteed right of the teacher. [C77, 79, 81, §279.19] 98 Acts, ch 1215, §43; 98 Acts, ch 1216, §26, 41; 2001 Acts, ch 161, §18; 2002 Acts, ch 1152, §5; 2017 Acts, ch 2, §35, 48, 49; 2017 Acts, ch 54, §41 Referred to in §256.103, 256.160, 273.22, 275.33, 275.56, 279.13, 279.16, 279.19B, 279.27, 280.15\n\nTue Dec 09 22:17:58 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 279 (98, 4) §279.19A, DIRECTORS — POWERS AND DUTIES 14 \n
Notes of Decisions
Stafford v. Valley Cmty. Sch. Dist., 298 N.W.2d 307 (Iowa 1980).
· cites it 7× “On April 2, 1979, the board decided that Stafford was a “probationary teacher” as defined in section 279.19 2 and therefore was not entitled to appeal the board’s decision terminating her contract to an adjudicator under section 279.”
Fay v. Bd. of Directors of North-linn, Etc., 298 N.W.2d 345 (Iowa Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 4× “18, and not by section 279.19. Review of decisions in cases involving termination of teachers' contracts by nonrenewal is governed by sections 279.”
Olds v. Bd. of Educ. of Nashua Cmty. Sch. Dist., 334 N.W.2d 765 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “There is no dispute that Step 4 of the "Reduction Procedures" is the applicable provision in this case that we must construe; the record does not indicate the availability of attrition or teachers with emergency or temporary certification, and Olds has more than two years…”
Bd. of Ed. of Fort Madison Cmty. v. Youel, 282 N.W.2d 677 (Iowa 1979).
“§ 279.19. Our discussion is restricted to such teachers and does not concern the more limited rights of probationers under that section.”
Bruton v. Ames Cmty. Sch. Dist., 291 N.W.2d 351 (Iowa 1980).
“§ 279.19. Termination of a probationary teacher’s contract may be effected by following the procedure before the board applicable to a nonprobationary teacher, but the board’s decision as to a probationary teacher “shall be final and binding” unless a termination is based on…”
Von Krog v. Bd. of Ed. of Beaman-conrad-liscomb, 298 N.W.2d 339 (Iowa Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “She was therefore no longer a probationary teacher as defined in section 279.19, The Code. On or about February 13, 1978, she was notified by the superintendent of schools that her contract was being considered for termination because of contemplated staff reduction.”
Larsen v. Oakland Cmty. Sch. Dist., 416 N.W.2d 89 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Iowa Code section 279.19 (1985) provides: The first two consecutive years of employment of a teacher in the same school district are a probationary period.”
Mumm v. Troy Twp. Sch. Dist., 38 N.W.2d 583 (Iowa 1949).
· cites it 4× “— The defendant school district and its officers and directors appeal from a judgment and decree ordering that a writ of mandamus issue, commanding them to furnish transportation for plaintiff’s children to and from the school in Williamsburg', in accordance with the provisions…”
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.