Wash. Rev. Code » Title 28A · Chapter 28A.405
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.220 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of RCW 28A.405.210, every person employed by a school district in a teaching or other nonsupervisory certificated position shall be subject to nonrenewal of employment contract as provided in this section during the first three years of employment by such district, unless: (a) The employee has previously completed at least two years of certificated employment in another school district in the state of Washington, in which case the employee shall be subject to nonrenewal of employment contract pursuant to this section during the first year of employment with the new district; or (b) the employee has received an evaluation rating below level 2 on the four-level rating system established under RCW 28A.405.100 during the third year of employment, in which case the employee shall remain subject to the nonrenewal of the employment contract until the employee receives a level 2 rating; or (c) the school district superintendent may make a determination to remove an employee from provisional status if the employee has received one of the top two evaluation ratings during the second year of employment by the district. Employees as defined in this section shall hereinafter be referred to as "provisional employees."
(2) The superintendent of the school district may not renew the employment contract of a provisional employee licensed under the interstate teacher mobility compact in chapter 28A.420 RCW for a third year if the provisional employee has not yet completed both the issues of abuse course described in RCW 28A.410.035 and the equity-based school practices requirements under RCW 28A.410.277.
(3) In the event the superintendent of the school district determines that the employment contract of any provisional employee should not be renewed by the district for the next ensuing term such provisional employee shall be notified thereof in writing on or before May 15th preceding the commencement of such school term, or if the omnibus appropriations act has not passed the legislature by the end of the regular legislative session for that year, then notification shall be no later than June 15th, which notification shall state the reason or reasons for such determination. Such notice shall be served upon the provisional employee personally, or by certified or registered mail, or by leaving a copy of the notice at the place of his or her usual abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then resident therein. The determination of the superintendent shall be subject to the evaluation requirements of RCW 28A.405.100.
(4) Every such provisional employee so notified, at his or her request made in writing and filed with the superintendent of the district within ten days after receiving such notice, shall be given the opportunity to meet informally with the superintendent for the purpose of requesting the superintendent to reconsider his or her decision. Such meeting shall be held no later than ten days following the receipt of such request, and the provisional employee shall be given written notice of the date, time and place of meeting at least three days prior thereto. At such meeting the provisional employee shall be given the opportunity to refute any facts upon which the superintendent's determination was based and to make any argument in support of his or her request for reconsideration.
(5) Within ten days following the meeting with the provisional employee, the superintendent shall either reinstate the provisional employee or shall submit to the school district board of directors for consideration at its next regular meeting a written report recommending that the employment contract of the provisional employee be nonrenewed and stating the reason or reasons therefor. A copy of such report shall be delivered to the provisional employee at least three days prior to the scheduled meeting of the board of directors. In taking action upon the recommendation of the superintendent, the board of directors shall consider any written communication which the provisional employee may file with the secretary of the board at any time prior to that meeting.
(6) The board of directors shall notify the provisional employee in writing of its final decision within ten days following the meeting at which the superintendent's recommendation was considered. The decision of the board of directors to nonrenew the contract of a provisional employee shall be final and not subject to appeal.
(7) This section applies to any person employed by a school district in a teaching or other nonsupervisory certificated position after June 25, 1976. This section provides the exclusive means for nonrenewing the employment contract of a provisional employee and no other provision of law shall be applicable thereto, including, without limitation, RCW 28A.405.210 and chapter 28A.645 RCW.
[ 2024 c 317 s 14; 2016 c 85 s 2; 2012 c 35 s 7; 2010 c 235 s 203; 2009 c 57 s 2; 1996 c 201 s 2; 1992 c 141 s 103; 1990 c 33 s 391; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 114 s 1. Formerly RCW 28A.67.072.]

Notes:

Effective date—2016 c 85: See note following RCW 28A.405.210.
Finding—2010 c 235: See note following RCW 28A.405.245.
Effective date—2009 c 57: See note following RCW 28A.405.210.
Effective date—1992 c 141 s 103: "Section 103 of this act shall take effect July 1, 1992." [ 1992 c 141 s 105.]
Findings—Part headings—Severability—1992 c 141: See notes following RCW 28A.410.040.
Savings—Severability—1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 114: See notes following RCW 28A.400.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1996–2020 · leading case: Peninsula Sch. Dist. No. 401 v. Pub. Sch. Employees, 924 P.2d 13 (Wash. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Peninsula Sch. Dist. No. 401 v. Pub. Sch. Employees, 924 P.2d 13 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 2× “In North Beach, the Court of Appeals upheld the union’s right to file a grievance concerning a provisional teacher’s nonrenewal even though it also held that the school board possessed the exclusive power under RCW 28A.405.220 (then codified as RCW 28A.”
Moldt v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10, 12 P.3d 1042 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “Provisional teachers are covered by RCW 28A.405.220, and they are specifically excluded from any rights under RCW 28A.”
Travis v. Tacoma Pub. Sch. Dist., 85 P.3d 959 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “On May 8, Travis received a letter from district superintendent James Shoemake informing him that the District was not renewing *963 his contract and notifying him of his right to request reconsideration under RCW 28A.405.220. Travis requested reconsideration and met with…”
Petroni v. Bd. of Directors of Deer Park Sch. Dist. No. 414, 113 P.3d 10 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 15× “Petroni was hired under a one-year contract and classified as a “provisional employee” pursuant to RCW 28A.405.220. ¶6 Under RCW 28A.405.100, all new employees must be observed at least once, for a total observation time of at least 30 minutes, during the first 90 days of their…”
Peninsula Sch. Dist. v. Pub. Sch. Emp., 924 P.2d 13 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 2× “In North Beach, the Court of Appeals upheld the union's right to file a grievance concerning a provisional teacher's nonrenewal even though it also held that the school board possessed the exclusive power under RCW 28A.405.220 (then codified as RCW 28A.”
Travis v. Tacoma Pub. Sch. Dist., 120 Wash. App. 542 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 28A.405.220; see Molsness, 84 Wn. App.”
Schlosser v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 333 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “220 ¶13 Schlosser contends that the continuing contract statute, former RCW 28A.405.220 (2009), 10 vests in certificated teachers a right essentially identical to “tenure.”
Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81 v. Spokane Educ. Ass'n, 182 Wash. App. 291 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “¶19 The statute contemplated in the last sentence of the section is RCW 28A.405.220, which is contained in Title 28A RCW, dealing with public schools.”
Ryan Frazier v. Steve Quick, et ux & Oroville Sch. Dist. No. 410 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 8× “RCW 28A.405.220( 2) and (5). Complying with the statutory process simply did not amount to outrageous behavior.”
Norman Hall v. Yelm Cmty. Schs. No 2 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 8× “RCW 28A.405.220. Further, because the 2018-19 contract had no binding effect without Board approval, no employment contract yet existed for 7 No.”
Michael F. Cronin v. Cent. Valley Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “In summary, RCW 28A.405.220 required the District to timely provide Cronin his notice of nonrenewal and a timely opportunity for a hearing.”
Michael F. Cronin v. Cent. Valley Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “210; RCW 28A.405.220; RCW 28A.405.900. Regular employees, such as Cronin, are covered by RCW 28A.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.220(1) — 2 cases
Norman Hall v. Yelm Cmty. Schs. No 2 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 28A.405.220. Further, because the 2018-19 contract had no binding effect without Board approval, no employment contract yet existed for 7 No.”
Ryan Frazier v. Steve Quick, et ux & Oroville Sch. Dist. No. 410 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 28A.405.220( 2) and (5). Complying with the statutory process simply did not amount to outrageous behavior.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.220(2) — 2 cases
Ryan Frazier v. Steve Quick, et ux & Oroville Sch. Dist. No. 410 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 28A.405.220( 2) and (5). Complying with the statutory process simply did not amount to outrageous behavior.”
Norman Hall v. Yelm Cmty. Schs. No 2 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 28A.405.220. Further, because the 2018-19 contract had no binding effect without Board approval, no employment contract yet existed for 7 No.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.220(3) — 2 cases
Norman Hall v. Yelm Cmty. Schs. No 2 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 28A.405.220. Further, because the 2018-19 contract had no binding effect without Board approval, no employment contract yet existed for 7 No.”
Ryan Frazier v. Steve Quick, et ux & Oroville Sch. Dist. No. 410 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 28A.405.220( 2) and (5). Complying with the statutory process simply did not amount to outrageous behavior.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.220(4) — 1 case
Ryan Frazier v. Steve Quick, et ux & Oroville Sch. Dist. No. 410 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 28A.405.220( 2) and (5). Complying with the statutory process simply did not amount to outrageous behavior.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.220(5) — 1 case
Ryan Frazier v. Steve Quick, et ux & Oroville Sch. Dist. No. 410 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 28A.405.220( 2) and (5). Complying with the statutory process simply did not amount to outrageous behavior.”
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.