States
Progress on this goal since 2013
- Improved
- Stayed the same
- Regressed
Do states articulate that instructional ineffectiveness is adequate grounds for dismissing a teacher?
Yes: AR, AZ, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, LA, MA, ME, MI, NJ, NM, NY, OH, PA, TN, VA, WA, WV, WY
No : AK, AL, CA, DC, IA, KS, KY, MD, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NV, OK, OR, RI, SC, SD, TX, UT, VT, WI
Footnotes
KS: Kansas has repealed the law that gave teachers who faced dismissal after three years in the classroom the right to an independent review of their cases.
NV: In Nevada, a teacher reverts to probationary status after two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations, but the state does not articulate that ineffectiveness is grounds for dismissal.
Are states’ dismissal policies fair and efficient?
Yes. State permits dismissal decisions to be appealed once. : FL, KS, LA, OK, WI
Partially. State permits dismissal decisions to be appealed multiple times for teachers dismissed for reasons other than ineffectiveness. : CO, IN, NY, TN
No. State permits all dismissal decisions to be appealed multiple times.: AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DE, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, KY, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NM, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TX, VA, WA, WV, WY
No. State has no policy -- or an unclear policy -- regarding dismissal.: DC, ME, NE, NV, UT, VT
Footnotes
CO: Teachers in Colorado revert to probationary status following ineffective evaluation ratings, meaning that they no longer have the due process right to multiple appeals.
IN: Teachers in Indiana revert to probationary status following ineffective evaluation ratings, meaning that they no longer have the due process right to multiple appeals.
KS: Kansas has repealed the law that gave teachers who faced dismissal after three years in the classroom the right to an independent review of their cases.
NV: In Nevada, a teacher reverts to probationary status after two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations, but the state does not articulate clear policy about its appeals process.
TN: Teachers in Tennessee revert to probationary status following ineffective evaluation ratings, meaning that they no longer have the due process right to multiple appeals.
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
- Admission into Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
- Early Childhood
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science and Social Studies
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- Special Education Preparation in Reading
- Assessing Professional Knowledge
- Student Teaching
- Teacher Preparation Program Accountability
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Identifying Effective Teachers
- State Data Systems
- Evaluation of Effectiveness
- Frequency of Evaluations
- Tenure
- Licensure Advancement
- Equitable Distribution
Retaining Effective Teachers
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Pensions
Research rationale
States need to be
explicit that teacher ineffectiveness is grounds for dismissal.
Most states have laws on their books that address teacher
dismissal; however, until recently these laws were much more likely to consider criminal and
moral violations than performance. While many states have amended their dismissal policy to be more explict about classroom ineffectiveness, some still retain euphemistic terms such as "incompetency,"
"inefficiency" or "incapacity." These terms are ambiguous
at best and may be interpreted as concerning dereliction of duty rather than
ineffectiveness. Without laws that clearly state that teacher ineffectiveness
is grounds for dismissal, districts may feel they lack the legal basis for
terminating consistently poor performers.
Due process must be
efficient and expedited.
Nonprobationary teachers who are dismissed for any grounds,
including ineffectiveness, are entitled to due process. However, due process
rights that allow for multiple levels of appeal are not fair to teachers,
districts and especially students. All parties have a right to have disputes
settled quickly. Cases that drag on for years drain resources from school
districts and create a disincentive for districts to attempt to terminate poor
performances. Teachers are not well served by such processes either, as they are
entitled to final resolution quickly.
Decisions about
teachers should be made by those with educational expertise.
Multiple levels of appeal almost invariably involve courts
or arbitrators who lack educational expertise. It is not in students' best interest
to have the evidence of teachers' effectiveness evaluated by those who are not
educators. A teacher's opportunity to appeal should occur at the district level
and involve only those with educational expertise. This can be done in a manner
that is fair to all parties by including retired teachers or other
knowledgeable individuals who are not current district employees.
Dismissal for Poor Performance: Supporting Research
One
of the greatest shortcomings of teacher performance appraisals has been school
systems' unwillingness and inability
to differentiate instructional competency. The New Teacher Project, 2009, "The
Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in
Teacher Effectiveness" at http://widgeteffect.org.
See
NCTQ, State of the States: Trends and Early Lessons on Teacher Evaluation and Effectiveness Policies (2011) as
well as studies by The New Teacher Project of human resource and dismissal
policies in various districts at: http://tntp.org/ideas-and-innovations.
For
information on the high cost of teacher dismissals, see Steven Brill, "The
Rubber Room," The New Yorker, August 31, 2009 at: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill.
Also,
see S. Reeder, "The Hidden Costs of Tenure: Why are Failing Teachers
Getting a Passing Grade?" Small Newspaper Group, 2005 at: http://thehiddencostsoftenure.com.