Facts
Achene was a probationary teacher during the 2006-2007 school year for the district. She received two evaluations that did not indicate her performance was unsatisfactory, but instead cited areas for improvement. The district then provided written notice to Achene of her unsatisfactory performance just one week before she was dismissed during the school year. The trial court determined the district failed to timely notify Achene that her performance was unsatisfactory or work with her to improve her performance. The district appealed on the grounds the requirement for ninety-day written notice of unsatisfactory performance does not apply to probationary employees.
Holding
Affirmed. The dismissal of probationary employees during the school year requires timely written notice of instances of particular unsatisfactory performance and an opportunity to correct these deficiencies. Here, since Achene was only provided a week of notice and not given the opportunity to correct these deficiencies, her dismissal during the school year for unsatisfactory performance was determined void.