Opinion ID: 1130366
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Education Code

Text: Prior to 1983, the Education Code provided that school districts must give notice by March 15 and an opportunity for a hearing at which the district must demonstrate good cause for its decision not to reelect a probationary teacher. (Former § 13443.) Under early statutory provisions relating to the hiring, dismissal and reelection of teachers, all teachers were subject to annual hiring decisions. Moreover, school districts exercised absolute discretion in making those decisions. ( Cousins v. Weaverville Elementary School Dist. (1994) 24 Cal. App.4th 1846, 1849 [30 Cal. Rptr.2d 310] ( Cousins ).) Thereafter, the Legislature imposed a two-tiered system. It distinguished between permanent employees, who enjoyed tenure and could only be dismissed for cause, and probationary employees, who could only be dismissed for cause during the school year but remained subject to a district's decision not to reelect them at the end of each school year with or without cause. ( Ibid. ) That right was expanded in 1935 to require, in larger districts, that any decision not to reelect be for cause. Cause could only relate to the welfare of the schools and pupils. ( Ibid. ) While the right to a hearing was not expressly granted, it was implied ( Keenan v. S.F. Unified School District (1950) 34 Cal.2d 708 [214 P.2d 382]; Tucker v. S.F. Unified School Dist. (1952) 111 Cal. App.2d 875 [245 P.2d 597]) and in 1953 was made express. (Ed. Code, § 13583 as amended by Stats. 1953, ch. 1040, § 1, p. 2508.) These requirements survived subsequent amendments to the Education Code until 1983. ( Cousins, supra, 24 Cal. App.4th at p. 1850.) The Cousins court noted, however, that the exception providing for dismissal with cause remained for probationary employees subject to layoff under section 44955, which, even today, requires a school district to provide the probationary teacher with notice and right to a hearing as prescribed by section 44949. ( Cousins, supra, 24 Cal. App.4th at p. 1850.) In 1976, we addressed the employment rights of probationary teachers in Turner v. Board of Trustees (1976) 16 Cal.3d 818 [129 Cal. Rptr. 443, 548 P.2d 1115] ( Turner ).) The Turner court observed, In considering the student's need for education, the teacher's need for job security, and the school board's need for flexibility in evaluating and hiring employees who may remain 40 years, the Legislature may determine whether a teacher's vested right shall be granted, postponed or denied. ( Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) 408 U.S. 564, 577 [33 L.Ed.2d 548, 560-561, 92 S.Ct. 2701].) Our school system is established not to provide jobs for teachers but rather to educate the young. Establishing a test period for teachers to prove themselves is essential to a good education system. While refusal to grant total job security at the time of initial hiring may be repugnant to those pursuing a teaching career, repeated statutory amendments relating to probationary teachers' rights (see Comment, Probationary Teacher Dismissal (1974) 21 UCLA L.Rev. 1257, 1260-1264), reveal that the Legislature has been well aware of the delicate balancing necessary to accommodate these sometimes competing interests. ( Turner, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 825.) In 1983, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill No. 813 (sometimes referred to as the Hughes-Hart Educational Reform Act of 1983), which amended several sections of the Education Code, and reduced the probationary period of teachers from three to two years. (See former § 44882, subd. (b), now § 44929.21(b).) In Grimsley, supra, 189 Cal. App.3d 1440, the court examined the legislative history of the 1983 amendments to the Education Code. It reasoned that the Legislature intended to provide a separate procedure for the [reelection of] probationary teachers apart from the procedures governing midyear dismissals.... ( Id. at p. 1447.) The court concluded that [t]he Legislature intended by the 1983 act to eliminate the requirement that the governing board's determination not to [reelect] a probationary teacher for the ensuing school year could be for cause only. ( Grimsley, supra, 189 Cal. App.3d at pp. 1443-1444; cf. Paramount Unified School Dist. v. Teachers Assn. of Paramount (1994) 26 Cal. App.4th 1371, 1378 [32 Cal. Rptr.2d 311] [district's decision against reelection of probationary teacher does not entitle teacher to hearing or statement of reasons under section 44929.21(b)]; see also McFarland Unified School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1991) 228 Cal. App.3d 166, 169 [279 Cal. Rptr. 26] [final determination regarding reelection of probationary teachers lies within discretion of district and tenure can be denied for any lawful reason].) In determining that a district's reelection decision may be made without cause, the Grimsley court recognized the argument that unfairness may result to a probationary teacher who is notified of [a district's decision not to reelect him or her] for a second year or third year (prior to March 15 of the second year) without a statement of reasons and without any redress by way of administrative hearing or appeal to the board. This can have an adverse consequence to an aspiring teacher seeking employment with other school districts. However, this problem is a policy matter properly addressed to the Legislature. As we have explained, our task is to take the statutes as they read and to ascertain the legislative intent from the language used. This we have done. (189 Cal. App.3d at p. 1448.) Thus, following the 1983 amendments to the Education Code, school districts with an average daily attendance of 250 students or more have been permitted by statute to choose not to reelect a probationary teacher for the ensuing school year without any showing of cause, without any statement of reasons, and without an administrative hearing or appeal, as long as the district gives notice to the teacher on or before March 15 of the employee's second year of employment. (§ 44929.21(b); Grimsley, supra, 189 Cal. App.3d at pp. 1447-1448.) If, on the other hand, the school district terminates a probationary employee because of a decline in pupil attendance, discontinuance of a service, or modification of curriculum, the school district must comply with procedures governing layoffs, including notice, hearing, and rights to reappointment if the work force is reinstated. (§§ 44949-44959.5; Cousins, supra, 24 Cal. App.4th at pp. 1852-1854.) Moreover, first and second year probationary employees may be dismissed during the school year for unsatisfactory performance (§ 44948.3, subd. (a)), or suspended for cause pursuant to section 44948.3, subdivision (b). These latter procedures require notice and a statement of reasons to the employee so affected. We are not faced, however, with interpreting the provisions pertaining to a layoff or midterm termination or suspension; the parties do not dispute that Gritts received timely notice of District's decision not to reelect him pursuant to section 44929.21(b).