Professional Standards Q&A: Transferred vs. reassigned

This past year, the ACSA Professional Standards Advocates assisted more than 750 members. In a continuing series of articles centering on the services provided by the ACSA Professional Standards Department, under the direction of Assistant Executive Director Joe Jones, EdCal recently asked Advocates Lloyd Wamhof and Rod Todd about the significance of an administrator being transferred vs. reassigned.

Question: Why is the difference between being transferred or reassigned so important to administrators?

Wamhof: Each year our Professional Standards Advocates deal with the issue of administrators being reassigned after the start of the new school year. The issue is that the administrator may be transferred at any time during the year; however he or she may not be reassigned after July 1 without proper notice. Reassignment and transfer are different as defined in EC 35035 and EC 44951, in addition to several court cases related to this difference.

Question: Can you give us an example?

Todd: Yes, a principal of a high school is told by the district he or she is being moved to an elementary site as principal on Jan. 1, and since the pay and work year will remain the same, there shouldn’t be an issue. The problem with this move stems from the distinction between reassignment and transfer. A lateral movement to another administrative position within the same position designation can be done subject to any local board policies, agreements or contracts at any time during the year.

Question: So, the situation you just described wasn’t a lateral move? 

Wamhof: That’s correct. If the district had moved the high school principal to another high school principal position, that would have been a transfer under EC 35035 and, therefore, wouldn’t require a notice. Regardless of the salary and work year being the same in both jobs, the move is still a reassignment. The move was out of his or her position designation and is therefore considered a reassignment, which requires proper notice in accordance with EC 44951.  

Question: What would proper notice be in this situation?

Todd: The district would have given the principal a March 15 Notice and a final notice approved by the board of education prior to July 1 of the previous school year.

Question: Can the district transfer the principal or any other administrator to a position on special assignment after July 1?

Wamhof: We do receive calls from administrators who have been reassigned to a position on special assignment. The answer to your question is no, not without the administrator’s agreement. This move must be done by proper notice under EC 44951, by March 15 of the prior school year, although sometimes it is in the best interest of the administrator to accept the reassignment.

Question: Are there any exceptions to the fact that the district must give proper notice before reassigning an administrator?

Todd: Yes, compliance with EC 44951 isn’t mandatory when the reassignment is for cause and the administrator fails to successfully dispute the district’s contention that he or she was reassigned for cause. Also, the provisions of EC 44951 don’t apply to a certificated employee who holds a written contract with an expiration date beyond the current school year.

Call (909) 484-7503 or (800) 608-ACSA for help from a professional standards advocate.

 

You may also be interested in...

  • Investing in our Public Schools
    By Bob Wells, Kevin Gordon and Dick Hamilton
  • Other states wooing CA teachers away
    There are signs that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposed huge cuts to education funding may be having an immediate impact in the classroom.
  • Ed Coalition decries proposed budget cuts
    As the Legislature scurries to address the issue of mid-year cuts, the Education Coalition recently held a press briefing on the governor’s proposed budget. Representatives of the state’s top education organizations raised a number of telling points to show how the proposed budget would hurt students.
  • Education Coalition calls on governor to halt devastating proposed cuts to California's schools
    Members of the Education Coalition detailed the devastating impact of Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposed budget to California’s students and schools, showing how a $4.8 billion budget cut severely damages the quality of education in our state, during an event Jan. 18 in Sacramento.
  • Per-pupil spending numbers in question
    ACSA members may be aware of a new report released by the U.S. Census Bureau, which says California ranks 25th in per-pupil school funding. Although some proponents of cutting school funding may use this as validation for their arguments, there are caveats to the census figures.
  • Budget woes: Gov's approval rating dips
    The devastation of the tidal wave of March 15 notices is still being felt and the reverberations have reached all the way to the top.
  • Finding Answers to Questions about School Finance
    From EdSource
  • Legislature may meet on budget mess
    Revenues are dropping, and the governor and Legislature are reportedly discussing the possibility of a special session on the budget. Although more cuts in the short-term are certainly on the table, what is really needed is a viable answer to the state’s chronic long-term needs.
  • Education outcry influences May Revise
    Parents and educators have voiced their strong opposition to all cuts to schools and students. And while the governor’s revised fiscal year 2008-09 state budget proposal avoids suspending Proposition 98, the state’s minimum school funding law, it still cuts billions of dollars from public education.
From: 
Email:  
To: 
Email:  
Subject: 
Message: