Each year the ACSA Professional Standards Department, under the direction of Assistant Executive Director Joseph Jones, receives calls from members asking questions about the March 15 Notice. EdCal asked Lloyd Wamhof, one of ACSA’s professional standards advocates, to answer key questions.

Question: Do you expect an increase in March 15 Notices being delivered to administrators in California this year?

Wamhof: Last year our department received calls from 213 ACSA members about a March 15 Notice. We anticipate a much higher number this year because of California’s budget crisis. 

Question: Exactly what is the March 15 Notice?

Wamhof: It is a formal written notice given by districts to certificated administrators notifying them that they may be released, demoted or reassigned for the following school year beginning July 1. The courts have stated, “The legislative purpose of the statute was to afford the administrator proper notice of possible change in duties and assignment in sufficient time to seek other satisfactory employment as an administrator.” The Legislature also declared administrators work at the will of the board and may be released, demoted or reassigned without cause if given proper notice, in other words, the March 15 Notice.

Question: Why is it normally referred to as the March 15 Notice?

Wamhof: The Education Code states that “unless a certificated employee holding a supervisory or administrative position is sent written notice deposited in the United States registered mail with postage prepaid and addressed to his/her last known address by March 15 that he/she may be released from his/her position for the following school year, or unless the signature of such an employee is obtained by March 15 on such notice that he/she may be released from his/her position for the following school year, he/she shall be continued in such position.”

Question: So the March 15 Notice may be delivered to the employee in two ways?

Wamhof: Yes, either by registered mail or hand delivered. If the notice is hand delivered, the district must obtain a signature from the employee signifying they have received it.

Question: What if the district fails to obtain the signature on a hand delivered notice?

Wamhof: The employee is continued in the same position for the next school year. The Court of Appeals has ruled that the provisions of EC 44951 are “mandatory” and are to be strictly construed. In one particular case, the employee was neither given the notice by registered mail nor was she asked to sign the form that was hand delivered to her. In a lower court ruling, the Superior Court had found that she had been improperly removed from her assignment as a principal and reassigned to a teaching position as of July 1 because the notice did not comply with the specific requirements of Education Code 44951.

Question: Is the district required to give reasons for the March 15 Notice?

Wamhof: Yes and no. If the employee is being demoted to a teaching position the answer is yes. The Education Code requires that an employee whose position requires an administrative or supervisory credential receive a statement of reasons for such demotion from “the governing board” when demoted to a teaching position. If the employee is being terminated or transferred or demoted to another administrative or supervisory position, the answer is no.

Question: What kind of reasons must a district give if being reassigned to the classroom?

Wamhof: The courts have stated, “Except when the reason is one that impinges upon constitutional rights, any reason, no matter how trivial, is sufficient.” This means a reason like, “We have lost confidence in you,” is sufficient.

Question: Does the board have to approve the March 15 Notice?

Wamhof: The board must approve final notice prior to July 1.

Question: What do you mean by final notice?

Wamhof: First, the district must give the administrator notice by March 15 that he or she may be demoted, reassigned or terminated for the following school year. The second step in this process is final board action with the specific action being taken by July 1.

Question: There seems to be some confusion as to whether an employee who has received a positive evaluation can still be given a March 15 Notice. Can you clarify this?

Wamhof: The courts have ruled, in simple terms, that there is no connection between a March 15 Notice and the evaluation. The one exception is when an administrator is being demoted to a teaching position and the reasons include incompetency. In this case, an evaluation of the person must have been completed not more than 60 days prior to giving the notice of the transfer.

Question: Are there any exceptions to the steps you have outlined for the March 15 Notice?

Wamhof: Yes, administrators working in county offices of education are not required to receive a March 15 Notice unless they had previously been employed in a teaching position by the county superintendent and are being reassigned back to the classroom. Because the Education Code doesn’t speak to a required March 15 Notice for administrators in county offices, we must rely on a 1985 court case, which included a finding that since there was an absence of mention of the March 15 requirement, a “reasonable” notice must be given. Although the case refers to a state university system case, it has the same implications for county offices in that neither entity is mentioned in the Education Code regarding the March 15 Notice for administrators who haven’t taught for the entity. It should be noted that some county offices do provide March 15 Notices to administrators.

Another exception is administrators who have “superintendent” in their title. The Education Code requires a 45-day notice prior to the end of the existing contract if a district does not intend to renew the contract.

Probationary, temporary and substitute certificated administrators have fewer due process rights than other employees. The Education Code  states that the governing board shall notify the probationary status employee, on or before March 15 of the second complete consecutive school year, of the decision to reelect or not reelect for the next succeeding school year.

The Education Code states that for five days after the enactment of the Budget Act and Aug. 15 of the fiscal year to which the Budget Act applies, the governing board may determine the necessity to decrease staff if the total revenue limit per unit of average daily attendance for the fiscal year of the Budget Act has not increased by at least 2 percent.

Finally, the governing board may eliminate a Particular Kind of Service after March 15, and lay off employees. This process is rarely used and is “subject to objective review.”

Question: What happens if a district gives an administrator with “superintendent” in their title a March 15 Notice instead of the 45-day notice (which normally falls on or around May 15)?

Wamhof: The courts have been very clear that these notices must be given properly in accordance with the Education Code. In Evans vs. Golden Plains School District, the district had given Evans, an assistant superintendent, a notice of reassignment to the classroom for the next school year. The notice cited Education Code 44951 and the court ruled that the notice should have cited Education Code 35031; therefore, the district had given improper notice because they cited the incorrect Education Code and had really given a March 15 Notice. Evans retained her position as assistant superintendent for the next year. Although this case can’t be used for legal citation, it clearly reinforces earlier court cases requiring proper notification.

Question: What advice do you have for administrators who suspect they may be receiving a March 15 Notice?

Wamhof: Definitely before you take any action, call the ACSA Professional Standards Office at (800) 608-ACSA and ask to speak with an ACSA professional standards advocate.