Filed 2/24/21

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

MICHAEL MCGROARTY,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 B306946

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 19STCP02796)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Mary H. Strobel, Judge. Affirmed. 

Bush Gottlieb, Ira L. Gottlieb and Lisa C. Demidovich for 

Plaintiff and Appellant.

Narmin A. Shahin and Marcos Hernandez for Defendants

and Respondents.

____________________________
2

Michael McGroarty appeals from a judgment in favor of 

respondents Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and 

Principal Kate Sohn. The dispute at issue is under what 

conditions someone who has served a school district as a 

university intern acquires permanent status, i.e., tenure.

McGroarty taught high school English for LAUSD as a 

university intern during the 2016–2017 school year, while 

simultaneously enrolled in coursework towards a teaching 

credential at the University of California Los Angeles Extension 

(UCLA). In June 2017, LAUSD rehired him on an intern

contract for the 2017–2018 school year. In late July 2017, he 

completed his coursework at UCLA, and the next month, UCLA 

applied on his behalf for a regular teaching credential from the 

Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC). The CTC had not 

issued McGroarty’s credential by the start of the 2017–2018 

school year, so he began the school year teaching under his intern 

credential and intern contract.

McGroarty received his regular credential from the CTC on 

October 12, 2017, and notified LAUSD he wished to enter into a 

new contract as a non-intern probationary employee. LAUSD 

required certain paperwork from Sohn, McGroarty’s principal, 

which she completed in late November 2017. McGroarty and 

LAUSD executed his new contract on December 6, 2017.

McGroarty completed the 2017–2018 school year and 

LAUSD rehired him for the 2018–2019 school year. In 

February 2019, LAUSD informed him he would not be reelected 

for the following school year and would be released from service.

McGroarty filed a petition for a writ of mandate as well as 

a complaint for due process violations against LAUSD and Sohn

seeking reinstatement and damages. He contended that under 
3

Education Code1 section 44466, which governs tenure for 

university interns, he had acquired permanent status at the 

commencement of the 2018–2019 school year. McGroarty argued 

he had satisfied the requirements of section 44466 by completing 

his university coursework in advance of the 2017–2018 school 

year, serving that school year in a credentialed teaching position 

(first under his intern credential, and then his regular 

credential), then beginning the 2018–2019 school year under his 

regular credential.

LAUSD and Sohn opposed the petition, arguing that 

section 44466 required McGroarty to serve the complete 2017–

2018 school year under a regular credential. They contended 

McGroarty did not begin service under his regular credential 

until December 2017, when he registered his credential with 

LAUSD and entered into his new contract. The trial court 

agreed, denied McGroarty’s petition, and dismissed his due 

process claims as moot.

On appeal, McGroarty argues that section 44466 did not 

require him to serve the 2017–2018 school year under a regular 

credential, but only required that he serve that school year under 

some credential, even an intern credential, after completing his 

internship coursework at UCLA. So long as he was serving 

under his regular credential by the outset of the 2018–2019 

school year, McGroarty contends he acquired tenure.

We conclude, as did the trial court, that section 44466 

contemplates that former university interns serve a complete 

year under a regular credential before acquiring tenure. 

1 Undesignated statutory citations are to the Education 

Code.
4

Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Beginning in June 2011, McGroarty enrolled in coursework

at UCLA to obtain a single subject teaching credential. 

In August 2016, McGroarty entered into a contract with 

LAUSD to serve as a “University Intern teacher of English” for 

the 2016–2017 school year, with service from September 12, 2016 

to June 30, 2017. The contract indicated he had a university 

intern credential in English. 

On June 20, 2017, McGroarty signed another contract with 

LAUSD to serve as a “University Intern Certificated Employee 

of Secondary, English” (some capitalization omitted) for the 

2017–2018 school year, with service from September 11, 2017 to

June 30, 2018.2 This contract also indicated he had an intern 

teaching credential. 

McGroarty completed his coursework at UCLA on 

July 24, 2017. On August 21, 2017, he informed Sohn, his 

principal, by e-mail that he had completed his coursework and 

passed an examination, and was waiting for UCLA to recommend 

him formally to the CTC. Sohn congratulated him and thanked 

him for “keeping [her] posted.” 

The parties do not dispute that McGroarty began the 

2017–2018 school year teaching under his intern credential. In 

early October 2017, McGroarty learned from the CTC that 

certain information was missing from the credential application 

submitted by UCLA on his behalf. He contacted UCLA, and 

2 Although McGroarty signed the contract on 

June 20, 2017, the contract specified its start date was 

July 1, 2017. 
5

UCLA resolved the issue. The CTC then informed McGroarty in 

an e-mail dated October 12, 2017, that it had issued his 

preliminary single subject teaching credential, with an issuance 

date of August 10, 2017.3

That same day, October 12, 2017, McGroarty informed a 

LAUSD credentials and contracts specialist by e-mail that he 

now had his preliminary credential and wished to schedule an 

appointment to sign a new contract. A different credentials and 

contracts specialist replied the next day, October 13, and 

informed McGroarty that his principal would need to complete a 

form before he could enter into a new contract. 

McGroarty contends he “immediately printed out the form 

provided by the District, and put it into Principal Sohn’s box for 

signature.” Sohn’s declaration stated she “received” the form on 

November 26, 2017, completed it, and returned it to McGroarty 

on November 27, 2017. McGroarty returned the completed form 

to the credentials and contracts specialist that same day.4

On December 6, 2017, McGroarty executed a contract with 

LAUSD as a “Probationary Certificated Employee of Secondary, 

3 Preliminary credentials are a type of “ ‘regular’ ” 

credential, in contrast to “alternative forms of certification” such 

as emergency permits and university internship credentials. (See 

Bakersfield Elementary Teachers Assn. v. Bakersfield City School 

Dist. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1287 (Bakersfield).) 

4 The form was titled “Conversion Non-Confidential 

Reference” and required Sohn to rate McGroarty’s “professional 

competence” and “personal qualities.” (Boldface, underscoring, 

and some capitalization omitted.) She rated him “outstanding” 

(capitalization omitted) in all areas, and wrote that he was a 

“genuine asset” to the school and was “[h]ighly recommended for 

the new contract.” 
6

English.” (Some capitalization omitted.) The contract start date 

was December 6, 2017, with his service to commence on or before 

January 8, 2018. The contract indicated McGroarty had a 

preliminary single subject credential in English. 

McGroarty completed the 2017–2018 school year, and 

LAUSD rehired him for the 2018–2019 school year. 

On November 16, 2018, Sohn signed a form recommending 

that LAUSD “non-reelect” McGroarty and “release” him “from 

LAUSD employment.” (Boldface and some capitalization 

omitted.) In a letter dated February 6, 2019, LAUSD informed 

McGroarty that he would not be reelected for the next school 

year. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

McGroarty challenged his release from employment by

filing a verified petition for writ of mandate under Code of Civil 

Procedure section 1085 and a complaint for injunctive relief and 

damages for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against LAUSD and Sohn. McGroarty alleged he had acquired 

tenure as of the first day of the 2018–2019 school year under 

section 44466, and therefore could be dismissed only for cause.

McGroarty alleged he had satisfied the requirements of that 

statute by completing his university internship program at UCLA 

in July 2017, working the entire 2017–2018 school year, and 

being rehired for the 2018–2019 school year. McGroarty sought a 

writ of mandate and injunction ordering LAUSD and Sohn to 

reclassify him as a permanent employee and reinstate him, as 

well as damages for loss of pay and benefits, and attorney fees 

and costs. 

Opposing the writ petition, LAUSD and Sohn disagreed 

with McGroarty’s interpretation of section 44466. They
7

contended that to obtain tenure under that statute, an employee 

must complete a teaching internship program, then serve a 

complete school year registered under a regular credential. 

Because McGroarty did not register his regular credential until 

December 2017, LAUSD and Sohn argued he did not satisfy these 

requirements, and therefore did not have tenure at the start of

the 2018–2019 school year. 

Following a hearing on February 11, 2020, the trial court 

denied the petition for a writ of mandate. The court agreed with 

LAUSD and Sohn that section 44466 requires an employee who 

has completed an internship program to serve a complete year “in 

a non-intern capacity and with a non-intern credential” to qualify 

for tenure. The court found that McGroarty had not done so, and 

therefore LAUSD and Sohn had no duty to classify him as 

permanent for the 2018–2019 school year. 

On July 6, 2020, the trial court entered judgment and 

dismissed the remaining claims as “derivative of the writ claim” 

and therefore moot. McGroarty timely appealed. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“A writ of mandate ‘may be issued by any court . . . to 

compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, 

as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station . . . .’ ” 

(Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist.

(2003) 29 Cal.4th 911, 916, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 1085, 

subd. (a).) To prevail, McGroarty must show that LAUSD “has a 

clear, present and ministerial duty” to reinstate him and 

reclassify him as a permanent employee. (Ibid.) In reviewing the 

trial court’s ruling on a petition for a writ of mandate, we “defer[ ] 

to a trial court’s factual determinations if supported by 
8

substantial evidence,” whereas the trial court’s interpretation of a 

statute “is subject to de novo review.” (Ibid.)

In interpreting a statute, “ ‘[w]e first examine the statutory 

language, giving it a plain and commonsense meaning.’ 

[Citation.] We do not consider statutory language in isolation; 

instead, we examine the entire statute to construe the words in 

context. [Citation.] If the language is unambiguous, ‘then the 

Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said, and the 

plain meaning of the language governs.’ [Citation.] ‘If the 

statutory language permits more than one reasonable 

interpretation, courts may consider other aids, such as the 

statute’s purpose, legislative history, and public policy.’ ” 

(Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2020) 9 Cal.5th 966, 972.) 

“[W]e may reject a literal construction that is contrary to the 

legislative intent apparent in the statute or that would lead to 

absurd results [citation].” (Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. 

Gore (2010) 49 Cal.4th 12, 27 (Simpson Strong-Tie, Co., Inc.).)

DISCUSSION

A. Relevant Law

Under the Teacher Education Internship Act (§ 44450 

et seq.), “[a]ny school district may, with the approval of the CTC, 

establish an internship program in conjunction with a college or 

university.” (Bakersfield, supra, 145 Cal.App.4th at p. 1289; see

§ 44452.) Courts commonly refer to interns in such programs as 

“university interns” (see, e.g., Bakersfield, at p. 1290), and

distinguish them from interns in “a parallel statutory internship 

program known as the ‘district’ internship program.” (Peoples v. 

San Diego Unified School Dist. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 463, 470 

(Peoples); see § 44830.3 [providing that school districts may 
9

“employ persons authorized by the [CTC] to provide service as 

district interns”]). A university internship credential “authorizes 

the same service at the same levels as the regular credential 

authorizes.” (§ 44454.) It is undisputed that McGroarty worked 

for LAUSD as part of a university internship program.

The central issue in this appeal is under what 

circumstances an employee who has served as a university intern 

acquires tenure. As a general matter, a certificated probationary 

employee of a school district “is classified as permanent, i.e., 

acquires tenure, if, after having been employed for two complete 

successive school years in a position requiring certification 

qualifications, he or she is reelected for the following year.” 

(Bakersfield, supra, 145 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1278–1279; 

§ 44929.21, subd. (b).)5 Tenure is automatic unless the school 

district notifies the employee “on or before March 15” of the 

employee’s second year that the district is not reelecting the 

employee for the next year. (§ 44929.21, subd. (b).) “In the event 

that the governing board [of the school district] does not give 

notice pursuant to this section on or before March 15, the 

employee shall be deemed reelected for the next succeeding 

school year,” and therefore will acquire tenure at the 

commencement of that year, i.e., the employee’s third consecutive 

5 Section 44929.21, subdivision (b) provides in relevant 

part: “Every employee of a school district of any type or class 

having an average daily attendance of 250 or more who, after 

having been employed by the district for two complete 

consecutive school years in a position or positions requiring 

certification qualifications, is reelected for the next succeeding 

school year to a position requiring certification qualifications 

shall, at the commencement of the succeeding school year be 

classified as and become a permanent employee of the district.”
10

year. (Id.)

Section 44466 governs “how (and whether)” time employed

as a university intern “counts in reaching the consecutive 

two-year requirement [under section 44929.21] for purpose[s] of 

obtaining tenure and triggering the March 15 notice 

requirement.” (Peoples, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 469.) It 

provides, in full: “An intern shall not acquire tenure while 

serving on an internship credential. A person who, after 

completing a teaching internship program authorized pursuant to 

this article, is employed for at least one complete school year in a 

position requiring certification qualifications by the school 

district that employed the person as an intern during the 

immediately preceding school year and is reelected for the next 

succeeding school year to a position requiring certification 

qualifications shall, at the commencement of the succeeding 

school year, acquire tenure.” (§ 44466.) 

In short, university interns may count the last year of their 

internship towards the two-year tenure requirement under 

section 44929.21. (See Peoples, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 469.) 

The Legislature enacted the current version of 

section 44466 in 1997. (Stats. 1997, ch. 138, § 2.) The previous 

version of the statute provided, “Interns shall not acquire tenure 

while serving on an internship credential, but each year of 

service as an intern shall count toward the achievement of 

tenure.” (Former § 44466 (Stats. 1976, ch. 1010, § 2).) As 

recognized by an Assembly committee analyzing the proposed 

1997 amendments, the pre-1997 version of the statute would 

seem to permit an employee to serve the two years required 

under section 44929.21 as an intern, then, at the commencement 

of the next school year, “obtain tenure without ever having 
11

taught as a fully credentialed teacher.” (Assem. Com. on 

Education, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 552 (1997–1998 Reg. 

Sess.) May 7, 1997.)

By permitting a university intern to acquire tenure without 

first teaching as a fully credentialed teacher, the prior version of 

section 44466 differed significantly from the statute governing 

tenure for district interns. To acquire tenure, district interns 

must “complete[ ] service in the district as a district intern,” then 

be “reelected and employed during the succeeding school year” in 

a “position requiring certification qualifications.” (§ 44885.5, 

subds. (a)–(b).)6 The express intent of the 1997 amendments to 

section 44466 was “to achieve consistency between the 

requirements for the attainment of permanent status” by 

university and district interns. (Stats. 1997, ch. 138, § 1.) As 

stated in an analysis of the enacting legislation, this would 

“ensure that individuals have taught independently as a 

6 Section 44885.5, subdivision (a) reads, in relevant part: 

“Any school district shall classify as a probationary employee of 

the district any person who is employed as a district intern 

pursuant to Section 44830.3 and any person who has completed 

service in the district as a district intern pursuant to 

subdivision (b) of Section 44325 and Section 44830.3 and is 

reelected for the next succeeding school year to a position 

requiring certification qualifications.” Subdivision (b) provides, 

in relevant part, “Every certificated employee, who has completed 

service as a district intern pursuant to subdivision (b) of 

Section 44325 and pursuant to Section 44830.3 and who is 

further reelected and employed during the succeeding school year 

as described in subdivision (a) shall, upon reelection for the next 

succeeding school year, to a position requiring certification 

qualifications, be classified as and become a permanent employee 

of the district.” 
12

credentialed teacher prior to earning tenure.” (Sen. Rules Com., 

Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 

552 (1997–1998 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 25, 1997.)

B. McGroarty’s Arguments

As set forth above, university interns acquire tenure by 

completing their internship program and then working for the 

same school district for the next “complete school year in a 

position requiring certification qualifications.” (See § 44466.) In 

other words, an employee meets the two-year tenure requirement 

by working the last year of the internship followed by one 

complete post-internship year. The central dispute of this appeal 

is whether the 2017–2018 school year constituted McGroarty’s 

post-internship year under section 44466. Resolving that dispute 

requires determining what circumstances delineate the end of the 

internship and the beginning of the post-internship year for 

purposes of section 44466.

The trial court interpreted section 44466 to require the 

employee to serve a complete school year under a regular, nonintern credential. Under this interpretation, the post-internship 

year under section 44466 does not begin until the employee 

ceases to serve under an intern credential and begins service 

under a regular credential. In the trial court’s view, this required 

McGroarty to register his new credential with LAUSD and enter 

into a new contract under that credential, which the trial court 

found he did not do until December 6, 2017, halfway through the 

2017–2018 school year.

McGroarty argues that reading section 44466 to require 

registration of, or recontracting under a regular credential to 

trigger the start of the post-internship year imposes an additional 

condition outside the plain language of the statute. McGroarty 
13

contends “it does not matter what type of credential [he] was 

serving under during the 2017–2018 school year.” Rather, 

McGroarty interprets section 44466 to set forth a three-step 

process, only the last of which contains a specific credentialing 

requirement. First, the employee must “complet[e] a teaching 

internship program.” (§ 44466). Second, the employee must 

work the next school year in a “position requiring certification 

qualifications” for the same school district for which the employee 

interned. (Ibid.) Finally, the employee must be reelected to serve 

the next succeeding school year, and be serving under a regular 

credential as of the commencement of that year. McGroarty 

argues he satisfied the three steps by the start of the 2018–2019 

school year.

As to the first step, McGroarty contends he completed his 

teaching internship program when he finished his coursework at 

UCLA in July 2017. McGroarty argues this step does not require 

him actually to obtain his regular credential, because other 

provisions of the Education Code indicate completion of an

internship is a prerequisite to obtaining that credential. 

Section 44259, subdivision (b), for example, lists among the 

requirements for a preliminary teaching credential the 

“[s]atisfactory completion of a program of professional 

preparation,” which includes “[i]nternship programs . . . pursuant 

to” section 44450 et seq., the statutes governing McGroarty’s 

university internship. (§ 44259, subd. (b)(3)(A)(iii).) 

Section 44321 provides, “Upon completion of an approved 

internship program, with district and teacher preparation 

institution certification, the commission shall approve the 

teacher intern.” California Code of Regulations title 5, section 

80472, subdivision (a), lists as a credential requirement that “[a]
14

California college or university offering a [CTC]-approved 

program of professional preparation as a requirement for the 

credential shall certify that the applicant has completed its 

approved program and shall recommend the applicant for the 

appropriate credential . . . .”

As to the second step, McGroarty contends that his position 

as a high school English teacher was a “position requiring 

certification qualifications” regardless of the certification under 

which he was teaching. He notes that “[a]n internship credential 

authorizes the same service at the same levels as the regular 

credential authorizes.” (§ 44454.) Further, in the answer to 

McGroarty’s petition, LAUSD and Sohn admitted the allegation 

that McGroarty “has been employed in a position requiring 

certification qualifications in the District for every school year 

since the 2016–2017 school year.”7

McGroarty derives the final step from the first sentence of 

section 44466, which states that “[a]n intern shall not acquire 

tenure while serving on an internship credential.” McGroarty 

interprets this to mean only that he had to be serving under a 

regular credential at the moment he became eligible for tenure, 

7 Under the Education Code, a “ ‘position requiring 

certification qualifications’ includes every type of service for 

which certification qualifications are established by or pursuant 

to Sections 44000 to 44012, inclusive, Section 44065, and 

Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 44200) of this part.” 

(§ 44001.) The parties do not analyze any of the cross-referenced 

statutes. We assume arguendo those statutes do not undercut 

McGroarty’s contention, or LAUSD’s and Sohn’s admission, that 

his teaching position was “a position requiring certification 

qualifications” regardless of whether he was teaching under his 

internship credential or his regular credential.
15

that is, “at the commencement of the succeeding school year” 

following completion of both his internship program and his first 

post-internship year. (§ 44466.) Put another way, McGroarty 

contends that an employee may accrue time towards tenure while 

serving under an internship credential, including in the postinternship year after “completing a teaching internship 

program,” then acquire permanent status by registering a regular 

credential sometime in advance of the school year following the 

post-internship year. McGroarty finds support for this contention

in the second sentence of section 44466, which states that after 

satisfying the requirements of the statute, the employee “shall, at 

the commencement of the succeeding school year, acquire 

tenure.” McGroarty argues that the usage of “acquire tenure” in 

the second sentence indicates acquisition happens at the moment 

the year commences. Because McGroarty was serving under his 

regular credential as of December 2017, he was no longer 

serving under his internship credential as of commencement of 

the 2018–2019 school year, at which point he contends he 

“acquire[d] tenure” under section 44466.

C. McGroarty Did Not Acquire Tenure Under 

Section 44466

Although McGroarty’s interpretation of section 44466 is,

grammatically speaking, a plausible construction of the language, 

we reject it because it would lead to unreasonable and unfair

consequences the Legislature could not have intended. 

Specifically, it creates the possibility that an employee could 

transition from internship to tenure-track status without the 

school district realizing it.

As discussed, section 44466 requires that, “after completing 

a teaching internship program,” the employee “is employed for at 
16

least one complete school year in a position requiring certification 

qualifications by the school district that employed the person as 

an intern during the immediately preceding school year . . . .” 

McGroarty contends he satisfied this requirement because he 

worked in a certificated teaching position for the entire 2017–

2018 school year after completing his university coursework in 

July 2017. 

Recall, however, that LAUSD hired McGroarty for 

the 2017–2018 year in June 2017, that is, at the end of the 

2016–2017 school year. At that time McGroarty was an intern in 

every sense of the word, not having yet completed his internship 

coursework, and still operating on an internship credential. 

Accordingly, McGroarty’s contract for the 2017–2018 school year 

specified he was hired as a university intern.

In McGroarty’s view, although LAUSD hired him for the 

2017–2018 school year as an intern, and indeed at that time 

there was no basis to hire him in any other capacity, completion 

of his university coursework a month later effectively converted 

his status from intern to non-intern for purposes of section 44466. 

This despite the fact that at the start of the 2017–2018 school 

year, he was still teaching under an internship contract and an 

internship credential.

This is not a reasonable interpretation of section 44466. 

Completion of coursework is determined by the university 

providing the teaching internship program, not the school 

district. McGroarty’s proposed regime deprives the school district 

of control over when and whether an employee with whom the 

district has contracted as an intern transitions into non-intern 

status for purposes of accruing time towards tenure.

Perhaps more importantly, McGroarty’s regime deprives 
17

the school district of notice that the intern is no longer an intern. 

We are unaware of any mechanism in the Education Code to 

ensure the school district is informed that an intern has 

completed university coursework. In McGroarty’s case, the only 

notice LAUSD received was McGroarty’s informal, and 

presumably voluntary, e-mail to Sohn in August 2017, 

unsupported by any documentation. Thus, under McGroarty’s 

reading, the school district may not even be aware that the 

person the district hired as an intern had transitioned to tenuretrack status.

At oral argument, McGroarty’s counsel contended that, 

because an internship program is a partnership between a school 

district and a university or other entity providing a teacher 

preparation program, the school district necessarily would be 

aware when the intern had completed all requirements and was 

simply awaiting issuance of a regular credential.8 We are not 

persuaded. McGroarty’s counsel identified section 44321, which 

states that “internship programs shall be joint projects of school 

districts and teacher preparation institutions,” and that 

“completion of an approved internship program” requires “district 

and teacher preparation institution certification” before the CTC 

“shall approve the teacher intern.” To the extent “district . . . 

certification” means the district must confirm that the intern has 

completed the district’s requirements, this does not mean the 

8 McGroarty’s counsel’s arguments were in response to a 

letter we sent to the parties in advance of oral argument, in 

which we asked them to be prepared to discuss under what 

provisions of the Education Code, if any, would school districts 

receive notice that university interns had completed their 

teaching internship program coursework.
18

district would know that the intern has also completed the 

“teacher preparation institution[’s]” requirements, such as 

completion of required coursework.

McGroarty’s counsel also cited California Code of 

Regulations, title 5, section 80033, which states that intern 

programs are “a partnership” between the university and school 

district, and that those entities must enter into a Memorandum 

of Understanding “detailing the support and supervision that will 

be provided.” (Id., subd. (b)(1).) Among other things, the 

university, district, and intern must agree on a “plan to complete 

the requirements.” (Id., subd. (b)(2).) The fact that the district 

has certain obligations in regard to the intern, and has agreed 

with the university as to the program requirements, does not 

mean the district will know when the requirements overseen by 

the university are complete.9

McGroarty’s counsel argued that LAUSD knew 

McGroarty had completed his internship program by the start of 

the 2017–2018 school year because the district did not provide 

him with a mentor for that year as required for interns 

under California Code of Regulations, title 5, section 80033, 

subdivision (b)(3). Counsel conceded there was no evidence of 

9 McGroarty’s counsel argued that a school district could 

require in the Memorandum of Understanding that the 

university or intern inform the district upon the intern’s 

completion of the university requirements. There is no 

Memorandum of Understanding in the record or any evidence 

such a provision exists in the instant case. We therefore need not 

address what impact such a provision would have, if any, on our 

analysis. We are dubious, however, that the Legislature would 

design a scheme that depended on contracts to remedy a lack of 

statutory notice.
19

this in the record. We thus express no opinion whether such 

evidence would impact our analysis. 

It is true that under McGroarty’s interpretation the school 

district eventually would learn the intern is no longer an intern, 

because interns must be serving under a regular credential before 

they can acquire tenure. (See § 44466 [“An intern shall not 

acquire tenure while serving on an internship credential.”].) 

This requires, at minimum, former interns to register their 

regular credentials with the district in order to authorize service 

under those credentials.10 (See §§ 44330, 44332.5, subd. (a); 

Fine v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 

1070, 1079 [“[R]egistration is, by statute, the sine qua non for a 

teacher’s service under a credential.”].)

In McGroarty’s view, however, this requirement need not 

be satisfied at any particular time, so long as it is satisfied before 

the first day of the school year following the post-internship year. 

An intern like McGroarty could complete a university program, 

serve most or even the entire next school year on his old 

internship credential, then acquire tenure at the start of the 

following year if the district registered his regular credential and 

signed him to a new contract sometime over the summer.

The Legislature cannot have intended this result. A 

central purpose of the post-internship year under section 44466 is 

to allow the school district sufficient time to evaluate whether to 

10 We need not and do not decide that registration of a 

regular credential alone is sufficient to deem an employee as 

“serving” under that credential for purposes of section 44466. It 

is sufficient for purposes of this appeal that registration of the 

credential would put the district on notice that the employee had 

completed the internship program.
20

grant tenure to the former intern. (Cf. Bakersfield, supra, 

145 Cal.App.4th at p. 1279 [one purpose of probationary scheme, 

in that case under section 44929.21, is to “ ‘provide[ ] the district 

with ample opportunity to evaluate the instructor’s ability before 

recommending a tenured position’ ”].) Under McGroarty’s 

interpretation, the school district might not know an intern has 

completed the university program until late into the postinternship school year, thus depriving the district of a full 

opportunity to evaluate the intern for tenure. Indeed, if the 

intern did not present a regular credential until after March 15, 

the normal deadline for tenure decisions (see § 44929.21, 

subd. (b)), the district would have no such opportunity at all.

McGroarty contends former interns have no reason to delay 

registration of their credentials, and school districts could further 

incentivize prompt registration, for example by offering better 

pay or benefits to those serving under regular credentials. 

Indeed, McGroarty’s counsel noted at oral argument that 

McGroarty’s internship contract with LAUSD required him to 

“immediately notify” LAUSD’s human resources division when he 

“earn[ed]” his regular credential. As McGroarty’s own 

circumstances illustrate, however, there can be a significant 

period of time between completion of university coursework and 

issuance of a credential, despite the best intentions of all 

involved. A school district should not be deprived of a fair 

opportunity to evaluate a former intern for tenure because of 

delays over which the school district had no control.

McGroarty argues that regardless of his credential status, 

the district was able to evaluate him as a teacher for the entirety 

of the 2017–2018 school year, in which his teaching duties were 

identical both before and after the CTC issued his regular 
21

credential and he presented it to the school district. In other 

words, McGroarty contends the timing of the issuance of his 

regular credential had no impact on the district’s ability to assess 

him for tenure by March 15 of 2018.

In rejecting this argument, the trial court concluded that 

there is “a meaningful difference in a district’s assessment of” 

employees serving under internship credentials and those serving 

under regular credentials. We agree. Under section 44465, “[a]

school district shall give special supervision and assistance to 

each intern above and beyond that given to other newly 

certificated and newly employed school personnel.” The purpose 

of the required post-internship year under section 44466 is to 

“ensure that individuals have taught independently as a 

credentialed teacher prior to earning tenure.” (Sen. Rules Com., 

Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill 

No. 552 (1997–1998 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 25, 1997.) 

We may reasonably presume that to teach “independently” 

means to teach without the “special supervision and assistance” 

provided to interns under section 44465. As discussed, 

McGroarty’s interpretation of section 44466 fails to ensure school 

districts know when to cease providing that special supervision 

and assistance, and to begin evaluating employees as 

independent teachers on their way to possible tenure.

In short, McGroarty’s interpretation of section 44466 

creates a regime in which his proposed line between intern and 

non-intern—i.e., the completion of university coursework—is 

potentially invisible to the school district until sometime during 

or after the school year, thus depriving the district of adequate 

opportunity to evaluate the employee for tenure. Again, this 

cannot have been the intent of the Legislature, and we reject this 
22

interpretation. (See Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc., supra, 

49 Cal.4th at p. 27 [“[W]e may reject a literal construction that is 

contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the statute or that 

would lead to absurd results [citation].”].)

The more reasonable interpretation of section 44466 is that 

a former intern “is employed . . . in a position requiring 

certification qualifications” following completion of an internship 

program only when “the school district that employed the person 

as an intern during the immediately preceding school year” 

reemploys the former intern under a regular credential. Under 

this reading, the phrase “is employed” includes the school 

district’s affirmative act of hiring the former intern into a postinternship position, as opposed to McGroarty’s reading in which 

the intern simply continues employment under the existing 

internship contract. This interpretation sets a bright line 

between intern and non-intern status, a line of which both the 

employee and the school district are aware. It also gives the 

school district control over whether to continue the intern’s 

employment following completion of the internship.

We find support for our interpretation in the parallel 

statute governing tenure for district interns, section 44885.5. As 

discussed, to acquire tenure, district interns must first 

“complete[ ] service as a district intern,” then be “reelected and 

employed during the succeeding school year” in a “position 

requiring certification qualifications.” (§ 44885.5, subds. (a)–(b).) 

The requirement that former district interns be “reelected” 

makes clear that they cannot simply continue to work under their 

existing internship contract following completion of their 

internship and accrue time towards tenure.
23

Although section 44466 does not state that a former intern 

must be “reelected” following completion of the internship, the 

express legislative intent of the 1997 amendments to 

section 44466 was “to achieve consistency” with the tenure 

requirements of the district intern program. (Stats. 1997, ch. 

138, § 1). Accordingly, courts have looked to section 44885.5 for 

guidance on the interpretation of section 44466. (See Peoples, 

supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at pp. 470–471.) Requiring district 

interns to be reelected before accruing time towards tenure, while 

allowing university interns to accrue time towards tenure simply 

by continuing on their existing intern contract, would not 

“achieve consistency” between the two regimes.

Our interpretation is further supported by Peoples, another 

case concerning the tenure requirements for university interns. 

The school district in that case argued that “employment under a 

university internship credential cannot count toward the 

two-year requirement for obtaining permanent employment set 

forth in section 44929.21, subdivision (b).” (Peoples, supra, 

138 Cal.App.4th at p. 469.) The Court of Appeal disagreed, 

reading section 44466 to provide that “the final year of 

employment under a university internship credential counts for 

one year towards tenure for purposes of applying

section 44929.21, subdivision (b) if the teacher is employed during 

the next consecutive year under a [regular] credential.” (See 

Peoples, at p. 469, italics added.) 

As McGroarty correctly notes, Peoples did not confront the 

issue presented in this case; the former university intern in 

Peoples had served a full year under a regular credential, and the 

court did not consider whether some earlier event, such as 

completion of her internship program coursework, triggered the 
24

start of her post-internship year under section 44466. (See 

Peoples, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 466.) Peoples nonetheless 

supports our conclusion that our interpretation is consistent with 

the language of the statute.

McGroarty argues that if the post-internship year cannot 

begin until the intern has registered a regular credential and 

entered into a new contract, “tenure rights would vary between 

similarly situated teachers based on bureaucratic processing 

delays and on the promptness of individual principals completing 

paperwork. The Education Code is not designed to base tenure 

rights on arbitrary or incompetent behavior of others, or to 

punish educators like McGroarty who comply with all 

requirements the statute demands of them.” 

None of these concerns outweighs the fact that under 

McGroarty’s interpretation, there would be no assurance that a 

school district would have proper notice that one of its interns 

had transitioned to tenure track. This in turn thwarts the 

purpose of allowing districts, once so notified, a complete year to 

evaluate former interns as independent teachers before granting 

tenure.

Also, to the extent there are “bureaucratic processing 

delays” by the university providing the internship program or the 

CTC, it is rightly the intern’s burden to address them, rather 

than the school district, which is uninvolved in those processes 

and does not know what is transpiring. Delays by the school 

district itself might be more troubling, but the solution cannot be 

to strip the district of the mechanism by which it can determine 

who is an intern and who is not.

McGroarty also suggests our interpretation would permit 

gamesmanship on the part of school districts, who might refuse to 
25

register credentials or execute new contracts in order to compel 

employees to continue working on unexpired internship 

credentials and not acquire tenure. Again, to the extent this is a 

concern, we decline to address it by depriving districts of notice 

when their interns move onto the tenure track. McGroarty’s 

proposed interpretation, moreover, would be no better than ours 

at preventing the gamesmanship he envisions. Even in his 

regime, an intern’s path to tenure requires the district eventually 

to register the intern’s regular credential, and McGroarty 

does not explain why his interpretation would prevent a school 

district from refusing to do so whereas our interpretation would 

not.

Because we conclude the post-internship year under 

section 44466 does not begin until the former intern is 

reemployed under a regular credential by the school district that 

employed him as an intern, the trial court correctly ruled that 

McGroarty did not acquire tenure at the commencement of the 

2018–2019 school year. McGroarty did not enter into a contract 

under his regular credential until December 2017, and thus did 

not serve a complete post-internship school year under that 

credential.

McGroarty argues reversal of the denial of his writ petition 

similarly requires reversal of the dismissal of his due process 

claims for damages and injunctive relief. Our conclusion that the 

trial court correctly denied the writ petition disposes of this 

argument.
26

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their 

costs on appeal.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.

BENDIX, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

CHANEY, J.