removing chronically ineffective teachers

8/7/2019 Removing Chronically Ineffective Teachers

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/removing-chronically-ineffective-teachers 1/32www.americanprogress.o

Removing ChronicallyInefective TeachersBarriers and Opportunities

Robin Chait March 2010


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/removing-chronically-ineffective-teachers 2/32



Removing ChronicallyInefective TeachersBarriers and Opportunities

Robin Chait March 2010



inrouon an summary | www.amranprogrss

Introduction and summary

Te imporance o eecive eaching in he naion’s public schools is receiving unprec-

edened atenion. As Presiden Barack Obama so aply saed in his remarks o he

Hispanic Chamber o Commerce las year, “From he momen sudens ener a school, he

mos imporan acor in heir success is no he color o heir skin or he income o heir

parens, i’s he person sanding a he ron o he classroom.”1 Te presiden expresses

wha a grea deal o research has documened—ha eachers have a remendous impac

on suden achievemen and ha eachers vary grealy in heir eeciveness.2

Expers argue ha promoing beter eaching requires comprehensive, aligned, and

inegraed human capial sysems or recruiing, raining, evaluaing, and compensaing

eachers.3 Tese sysems mus also be aligned wih a disric’s sraegic goals.4 Te Cener

or American Progress has ocused in prior publicaions on many o hese key componens

o human capial sysems. Ye one criical piece o he sysem has no received as much

atenion—he dismissal o chronically ineecive eachers.

Tis repor ocuses on he challenges in dismissing chronically ineecive eachers, hose

who are persisenly ineecive and don’ improve wih addiional proessional develop-

men or oher ypes o suppors. Tese eachers may be idenied by more han one year

o poor perormance when using so-called “value-added esimaes” o heir eecivenessand/or several poor observaions o heir eaching pracice when hey are assessed agains

sae and disric rubrics o eecive eaching pracice.

Chronically ineecive eachers may have been eecive in he pas and los heir moiva-

ion o each, or hey may have always lacked he skills or alen needed. eachers who are

chronically ineecive should be idenied or assessmen, assisance, and suppors, and

hen dismissed i hey don’ improve. Tis paper will no ocus on hose eachers who have

commited criminal or misconduc oenses.

I is well documened ha eachers are rarely dismissed. Naional esimaes rom he

2007-08 Schools and Sang Survey conduced by he U.S. Deparmen o Educaionnd ha school disrics dismiss on average only 2.1 percen o eachers each year or poor

perormance.5



2 cnr for Amran Progrss | Rmovng chronally inffv tahrs

A number o indicaors sugges ha he percen o eachers dismissed is relaively low

compared o he percen who should be dismissed. eachers and principals repor in

several naional surveys ha hey believe here are ineecive eachers eaching in heir

schools.6 In a recen survey o a naionally represenaive sample o eachers conduced

by Public Agenda and Learning Poin Associaes, 59 percen o eachers repored ha

here were a ew eachers in heir building who “ail o do a good job and are simply going

hrough he moions” and 18 percen o eachers repored here were more han a ew.7

Similarly, he New eacher Projec conduced a recen sudy o evaluaion pracices in

12 disrics eniled “Te Widge Eec” and ound ha 81 percen o adminisraors and

58 percen o eachers repored here was a enured eacher in heir school who delivers

poor insrucion.8 Finally, a Public Agenda survey ound ha while overall, principals and

superinendens were very saised wih heir eaching sa, more han 7 in 10 repored

ha making i easier o re bad eachers, even hose wih enure, would be a very eecive

mehod o improving eaching qualiy.9

Moreover, many school disrics ha have very low levels o suden achievemen sill

dismiss ew eachers or rae hem as unsaisacory.10 While here are oher acors ha

conribue o suden achievemen besides eecive insrucion, i is hard o reconcile he

sark disconnec in many disrics.

I mos eachers are eecive, does i mater ha a small percenage o eachers are chroni-

cally ineecive and i is dicul o dismiss hem? I maters a lo or hree key reasons.

One, chronically ineecive eachers inhibi he learning o large numbers o sudens over

ime. eachers are responsible or anywhere rom 20 sudens o 200 sudens each year

depending on he school size, class size, and school level (wheher elemenary or second-

ary). Tereore, incompeen eachers can depress he achievemen and inhibi he learn-

ing o many sudens during he course o heir career or during he ime period when hey are perorming poorly.

Tere are a number o rough esimaes o wha his acually means or suden achieve-

men. For example, researchers rom he Brookings Insiuion conduced an analysis

o daa rom he Los Angeles public schools and projeced ha dismissing he botom

quarile o eachers in he disric, based on value-added esimaes during heir rs year o

eaching, would resul in a ne increase in suden es scores gains o 1.2 percenage poins

annually across he disric.11 Tis gain would be signican over ime.

Researcher Eric Hanushek rom Sanord Universiy nds ha removing he bo-

om 6 o 10 percen o eachers would lead o a gain in suden achievemen ha is heequivalen o improving he perormance o sudens in he Unied Saes o he level o

Canada’s sudens (rom 29h o 7h) on he Organisaion or Economic Cooperaion and

Developmen’s Program or Inernaional Suden Assessmen in mahemaics es over a




13-year period.12 While we don’ recommend dismissing eachers based solely on value-

added esimaes o heir eeciveness, hese analyses give some approximaion o he

impac o chronically ineecive eachers on suden achievemen.

Second, eachers and adminisraors are unlikely o ake evaluaion sysems seriously i

eachers can’ be dismissed. Te inabiliy o dismiss incompeen eachers encourages

principals o give all eachers saisacory marks on heir evaluaions, raher han akinghe evaluaion process seriously. I principals believe hey will be unable o dismiss heir

lowes-perorming eachers, hey have litle incenive o go o he rouble o documening

heir poor perormance. And when principals give low-perorming eachers saisacory

marks, hey are no only giving eachers incorrec inormaion abou heir perormance,

bu hey are missing an opporuniy o provide eedback on heir weaknesses and how

hey migh improve.

Tird, incompeen eachers diminish he school culure and learning environmen or

all eachers and sudens in a school. Erick Hirsch o he New eacher Cener sudied

eachers’ working condiions in a number o saes and ound ha an amosphere o rus

and muual respec is imporan o boh suden achievemen and eacher reenion.13

“eachers wan o work in schools where hey can hrive, and hey’re no going o hrive

and exend hemselves i hey don’ eel comorable wih heir colleagues and he school

leadership.”14 I is dicul o creae an amosphere o muual respec and rus when sev-

eral aculy members are no meeing sae and disric sandards.

Furher, dismissing chronically ineecive eachers may be even more imporan in some

schools, such as high-povery schools. A recen analysis o longiudinal suden daa in

Florida and Norh Carolina suggess ha he leas eecive eachers in high-povery

schools are signicanly lower perorming han he leas eecive eachers in low-povery

schools.15

And naional daa indicae ha eacher dismissal raes or poor perormancewere higher in he highes povery disrics han in he lowes-povery disrics (2.9 per-

cen or enured eachers and 1 percen or probaionary eachers in he highes povery

quarile compared o 2.2 percen or enured eachers and .6 percen o probaionary

eachers in he lowes-povery quarile).16 Tis may indicae ha he highes-povery dis-

rics were more moivaed o dismiss ineecive eachers, or ha in low-povery schools,

low-perorming eachers are more likely o be encouraged o leave raher han dismissed.

However, i also migh indicae ha high-povery schools have greaer proporions o

chronically ineecive eachers.

I’s also likely ha chronically ineecive eachers depress he learning o heir peers and

hereore he achievemen o oher sudens in he school. In a recen sudy using longiu-dinal daa rom Norh Carolina, C. Kirabo Jackson and Elias Bruegmann, researchers rom

Cornell and Harvard, respecively, ound ha sudens have greaer increases on es scores

when heir eachers have colleagues wih higher qualicaions.17 Tey also ound ha a

eacher’s sudens have greaer es score gains in reading and mah when he eacher has

more eecive colleagues based on value-added esimaes.




Tere is no quesion ha mos eachers are commited o heir sudens and heir proes-

sion, and are rying hard o mee heir sudens’ needs every day. A recen, naionally repre-

senaive survey o eachers ound ha 68 percen o eachers repored, “Te idea o puting

underprivileged kids on he pah o success” was eiher one o he mos imporan acors

or a major acor in heir decision o go ino eaching.18 Moreover, 75 percen repored,

“Good eachers can lead all sudens o learn, even hose rom poor amilies or who have

uninvolved parens.”19 Some o hese eachers migh need addiional suppor o be highly eecive, bu mos are doing grea work wih sudens, many under dicul circumsances.

Moreover, i is dispiriing o alened eachers o each nex o hose who aren’ provid-

ing high-qualiy insrucion. According o Randi Weingaren, presiden o he American

Federaion o eachers, “no eacher—mysel included—wans ineecive eachers in

he classroom.”20

Rigorous evaluaion sysems should arguably creae a higher perormance bar or eachers

remaining in he proession. Righ now, many disrics are eiher using poorly designed

evaluaion sysems or are implemening hose sysems poorly. Ye hey are si ll ideniying

chronically ineecive eachers who should be removed rom he classroom and curren

sae and disric policies presen many barriers o removing hese eachers even i hey

do no improve. So raher han dismiss ineecive eachers, many adminisraors come up

wih oher ways o re-assign hem. Tey may ranser eachers o oher schools or reassign

hem o noneaching posiions.

Tis repor explores he reasons ha eacher dismissal is rarely pursued—including weak

eacher evaluaion pracices or sysems, he ime and cos o dismissal cases, he diculy

o winning cases, a school culure ha is uncomorable diereniaing among eachers, and

he diculy o hiring replacemens in some disrics. I explains reasons or hese barriers

ha exis in law and policy and describes wha a beter perormance managemen sysemmigh look like. I hen oers recommendaions or changes o sae law, disric policy, and

school-level pracice o suppor his beter sysem. Key recommendaions are as ollows:

Federal

Te ederal governmen should coninue o provide incenives o saes and disrics o

improve heir evaluaion pracices and should also use incenives o encourage reorms o

he enure and dismissal processes.

Federal policy should require saes and disrics receiving ile II unds o have meaning-ul requiremens or awarding enure. Te Obama adminisraion has proposed making

ormula unding rom ile II o he Elemenary and Secondary Educaion Ac coningen

on saes having srong eacher evaluaion sysems, as par o is 2011 budge reques. Te




adminisraion could go a sep urher by requiring saes receiving ile II unds o have

meaningul requiremens or awarding enure and or disrics receiving ile II unds o

have a rigorous process in place or awarding enure.

Federal policy should require granees o he proposed eacher and Leader Innovaion

Fund o eiher have a rigorous evaluaion sysem in place or o include he developmen

o a more rigorous evaluaion sysem and he sang and oher elemens needed o makei successul as par o heir gran. Te proposed eacher and Leader Innovaion Fund is a

logical vehicle or encouraging innovaive and rigorous eacher evaluaion pracices, since

hey are he oundaion o so many oher reorms o eacher-relaed policies.

State

Sae laws can help o ensure ha evaluaion pracices are rigorous, ha he enure deci-

sion is based upon meaningul inormaion abou eacher perormance, and ha he

dismissal process or chronically ineecive eachers is air bu ecien.

Sae law should provide guidance o disrics o ensure heir evaluaion sysems are rigor-

ous. Sae guidelines should require ha disric evaluaion sysems draw rom muliple

sources o inormaion and ha objecive measures o suden learning, measures o

eacher eeciveness derived rom achievemen es daa, and classroom observaions be

signican componens o evaluaion sysems. Saes should also require ha evaluaion

sysems diereniae among eachers, and should encourage he use o inormaion rom

he evaluaion sysem o inorm eacher-relaed policies.

Sae law should require ha he enure decision is based upon meaningul evidence

o perormance and should hereore increase he probaionary period o somewherebeween hree and seven years. Evidence should include eacher evaluaions, suden

growh on sandardized ess, and oher measures o suden learning.

Sae law should ie he evaluaion process o he dismissal process. Dismissal should really

be he end resul o ongoing, poor perormance according o a high- qualiy evaluaion

sysem. A sae saue should make ha link beween evaluaion and dismissal explici and

give deerence o resuls rom he evaluaion process in he dismissal hearing.

Saes should include poor perormance as a cause or dismissal in heir enure saues.

Te deniion o poor perormance should clearly indicae ha poor perormance means

boh ineecive insrucional pracice and ailure o promoe suden achievemen and nooal incompeence or egregious conduc.

Sae laws should require ha disric-level dismissal hearings are compleed wihin a

reasonable ime period—perhaps 30 days o 60 days—and include only ve hearing days.




I is cosly and ime consuming o a principal and school disric o allow cases o drag on

or a year or more and does no bene anyone in he process.

Sae laws should allow only one appeal or enured eachers who are dismissed based on

poor perormance. I is exremely cosly or disrics o have o liigae muliple appeals,

and i a eacher has been dismissed and hen los an appeal i is likely ha he or she is a

chronically ineecive eacher.

District

Disrics should ensure ha heir evaluaion sysems are o high qualiy and are imple-

mened wih deliy, ha he enure decision is meaningul and rigorous, and should work

wih eachers and heir represenaives o creae sreamlined processes or supporing

sruggling eachers and dismissing hose who are chronically ineecive.

Disrics should ensure ha hey have high-qualiy evaluaion sysems and ha schools are

implemening hem as hey are inended. Disric sa should review school-level eacher

evaluaion daa o ensure ha schools are diereniaing among eachers. Tey should also

rain school leaders in conducing evaluaions and in perormance managemen.

Disrics should ensure he enure decision is meaningul, rigorous, and based on daa abou

eacher perormance. In mos disrics oday, enure indicaes he passage o ime, raher han

ha some benchmark o perormance has been me. Evidence should include observaions o

eacher pracice, suden growh on sandardized ess, and oher evidence o suden learning.

Disrics, in collaboraion wih eachers and heir represenaives, should work ogeher

o creae sreamlined processes or sysems or removing chronically ineecive eachers.One opion is o creae peer assisance and review programs in which maser eachers are

assigned o suppor and evaluae eachers who are sruggling. eachers who don’ improve

in he opinion o he maser eachers should be recommended or dismissal and he dis-

missal process should be expedied or hose eachers.

School

Finally, school leaders should inves signican ime in managing eachers’ perormance—

conducing evaluaions and providing appropriae eedback and suppor.

Principals and school leaders mus inves ime in conducing evaluaions, providing mean-

ingul eedback o eachers, and providing suppor o eachers who are sruggling. Tey

also mus be willing o have dicul conversaions wih low-perorming eachers.



dfnng an nfyng hronally nffv ahrs | www.amranprogrss

Defining and identifyingchronically ineffective teachers

I is dicul o alk abou dismissing chronically ineecive eachers wihou dening

he erm. Currenly, here is no widely used deniion o a chronically ineecive eacher,

alhough school disrics will likely develop heir own deniions once hey have rigorous

evaluaion sysems in place.

Many sae saues, cours, and school disrics have no dened ineecive eachers per

se, bu have dened incompeence or a eacher’s inabiliy o do heir jobs in a variey

o ways. For insance, Pennsylvania saue describes incompeence as “a coninuing or

persisen menal or inellecual inabiliy or incapaciy o perorm he services expeced o

a proessional educaor or a charer school sa member.”21

ennessee saue denes incompeency as “ being incapable, lacking adequae power,

capaciy or abiliy o carry ou he duies and responsibiliies o he posiion. Tis may

apply o physical, menal, educaional, emoional, or oher personal condiions. I may

include lack o raining or experience, eviden unness or service, a physical, menal or

emoional condiion making he eacher un o insruc or associae wih children or he

inabiliy o command respec rom subordinaes or o secure cooperaion o hose wih

whom he eacher mus work.”22 Tese are only wo examples, bu hey boh ocus on he

eachers’ capaciy o perorm heir duies, raher han wheher heir sudens are learning.

Tis paper denes chronically ineecive eachers as hose eachers who perorm poorly

over a susained period o ime and don’ improve when provided wih suppor. A disric

evaluaion sysem would aid in ideniying ineecive eachers, using inormaion rom

several observaions as well as suden growh daa, where available. An evaluaor would

assess he problem using a deailed evaluaion rubric and provide ormaive eedback and

diereniaed suppor in he eacher’s areas o weakness. Ten aer providing he appro-

priae eedback and suppor or a se period o ime, he eacher would be observed.

Te evaluaion sysem would indicae wha raings in each area o perormance are

expeced o an eecive eacher. I eachers hen me hese raings, his would indicaehey are improving. Te evaluaor would also ollow up by reviewing he eacher’s suden

growh daa i and when hey are available o complee he assessmen. I he eacher does

no demonsrae improvemen according o he evaluaion rubric, hey would be dis-

missed aer being aorded air bu ecien due process.




In disrics ha don’ ye have rigorous evaluaion sysems, disric sa could assis

principals in ideniying eachers or a more in-deph evaluaion by reviewing value-added

esimaes o eacher eeciveness where hey are available. wo years o poor perormance

would indicae a need or an in-deph evaluaion and poenial inervenion ha would

lead o improvemen or dismissal.

In a recen paper or he Naional Cener or Analysis o Longiudinal Daa in EducaionResearch, Dan Goldhaber and Michael Hansen ound ha i disrics denied enure o

eachers who perorm in he botom quinile in boh reading and mahemaics or wo

years in a row (abou 11 percen o heir eachers), almos 60 percen o hese eachers

would be in he lowes wo perormance quiniles in reading aer being graned enure,

and almos 70 percen would be in one o he wo lowes quiniles o pos-enure peror-

mance in mahemaics.23 Tese analyses indicae ha eachers who perorm in he botom

quinile in he disric or wo years in a row are likely o be he disric’s lowes perormers

in he uure and should be idenied or an inervenion ha could lead o improvemen

or dismissal. While hese esimaes are no perec, hey are likely more predicive han

mos oher measures o eachers’ eeciveness.



Barrrs o ahr smssal n shool an sr pra | www.amranprogrss

Barriers to teacher dismissalin school and district practice

Weak evaluaion sysems ha ail o dene or ideniy low eacher perormance presen

a criical barrier o dismissing chronically ineecive eachers. Oher imporan barriers

include he ime and cos o eacher dismissal processes, he diculy o winning cases,

and a school culure ha resiss diereniaing among eachers. Finally, in schools ha

have diculy atracing good eachers, principals may be relucan o dismiss weak each-

ers ou o concern ha hey won’ be able o replace hem.

Inadequate evaluation systems

Mos disrics’ eacher evaluaion pracices lack rigor and deph, and do no adequaely

diereniae among eachers, as a number o recen repors have documened. 24 Evaluaion

pracices ail o drive insrucional improvemen in mos disrics as mos eachers receive

ousanding or saisacory raings and receive litle or no eedback abou how o improve,

eiher because he sysems hemselves are poorly designed or hey are poorly implemened.

Evaluaion sysems rarely dene low perormance in a meaningul way, or give explici indi-

caors o wha i looks like. While mos principals would likely say hey know i when hey

see i, clear guidance wihin he evaluaion sysem would help hem in documening weak

perormance. I is very dicul or principals o documen he insrucional weaknesses o poor-perorming eachers, given he supercialiy o mos eacher evaluaion sysems oday.

Many schools currenly lack he sa capaciy—boh in erms o experise and sa

hours—o observe all o heir sa and wrie up heir ndings hroughou a year.

Principals don’ have he ime o evaluae all o heir sa several imes each year. Tey

also requenly don’ receive enough raining on how o conduc evaluaions. Te New

eacher Projec conduced a recen sudy o evaluaion pracices in 12 disrics eniled

“Te Widge Eec” and ound ha only abou hal o school adminisraors surveyed said

hey had received “exensive” or “very exensive” raining on how o conduc an eecive

evaluaion.25 Tis lack o capaciy o conduc evaluaions is xable, bu i is a problem ha

will likely ake an invesmen o ime, resources, and rehinking o solve.




Time and cost

Recen repors have documened he ime and cos o dismissing a enured eacher. Te

U.S. Deparmen o Educaion conduced a naionally represenaive principal survey as

par o is Schools and Sang Survey and queried principals abou “he barriers o he

dismissal o poor-perorming or incompeen eachers” in heir schools.26 Te greaes

proporions o principals repored he ollowing barriers: “lengh o ime required orerminaion process” (59.5 percen); “eor required or documenaion” (64.6 percen);

enure (71.8 percen); and eacher associaions or unions (61.2 percen).27 Similarly, in a

sudy o sang rules in ve disrics, Jessica Levin and colleagues rom Te New eacher

Projec ound in one disric hey sudied i could ake 10 percen o 15 percen o a princi-

pal’s ime over several monhs o bring one dismissal case o a hearing.28

Sae and local examples illusrae a similar poin. Il linois school disrics ha hired ou-

side lawyers in cases o eacher dismissal “spen an average o $219,504.21 in legal ees or

dismissal cases and relaed liigaion rom he beginning o 2001 unil he end o 2005,”

according o an analysis conduced by Scot Reeder o he Small Newspaper Group.29 Tis

esimae included cases ha were sill pending, and hereore likely underesimaes he

coss per case.

In New York sae, dismissal cases can ake rom 6 monhs o 18 monhs.30 I coss abou

$250,000 o re an incompeen enured eacher in New York Ciy,31 and dismissal cases

can ake beween wo and ve years jus o be heard.32 Te hearings hemselves can ake

beween 40 and 45 hearing days over a period o nine monhs or more.33

An invesigaion o dismissal cases in Caliornia conduced by Te Los Angeles imes ound

ha “as a case winds is way hrough he sysem, legal coss can soar ino he six gures.”34

Los Angeles Weekly conduced a recen analysis o he coss o dismissing eachers or poorperormance in he Los Angeles Unied School Disric and ound “in he pas decade,

LAUSD ocials spen $3.5 million rying o re jus seven o he disric’s 33,000 eachers

or poor classroom perormance.”35 Tese coss include he coss o paying eachers a ull

salary and benes hroughou he rial period.

Superinendens and principals nd eacher dismissal so ime consuming and burdensome

ha many don’ pursue dismissals even when hey believe hey should. Eighy-six percen

o adminisraors in “Te Widge Eec” sudy saed ha hey did no always pursue

dismissal when i was warraned.36

Te dismissal process is lenghy and hereore cosly or a number o reasons. Firs, inmos saes, school disrics need subsanial documenaion beore bringing a case o a

hearing. Disrics mus generally presen several observaions ha clearly show he eacher

has ailed o improve in order o bring an incompeence case o rial.37 Te documena-

ion process can ake one o wo years in many disrics, because disrics requenly have



Barrrs o ahr smssal n shool an sr pra | www.amranprogrss.o

o documen he eacher’s low perormance and hen also help he eacher improve and

documen ha process as well. Tese requiremens can ake an inordinae amoun o ime,

especially or disrics ha are no already conducing regular evaluaions. According o

Dan Weisberg o he New eacher Projec, “None o i happens organically, as par o a

sandard evaluaion sysem, so wha you have is a re drill o do he documenaion.”38

I a eacher is ineecive or wo years and hen he documenaion and assisance processakes an addiional year, his eacher aecs he learning o sudens over hree years. Ten

he disric mus begin he hearing process. In one o he disrics sudied by Te New

eacher Projec in heir sudy o sang rules in ve disrics, he evaluaion process o

dismiss a eacher would ake a year and abou 100 hours o observaion and documena-

ion.39 While i is reasonable and air o ry o remediae a low-perorming eacher, a one-

year process on op o a year or wo o low perormance seems excessive.

Te hearing process isel is usually very lenghy because o he sandard o review used in

cases o eacher dismissal.40 Te arbiraor, school board, or adminisraive law judge’s role

in cases o eacher dismissal a he disric level is o do wha lawyers call “de novo review,”

or looking a he disric’s decision compleely anew.41 Te arbiraor or judges are no jus

esing or wheher here’s a good aih eor o bring a case and wheher he case is biased,

bu is he disric’s decision he bes judgmen or he wises judgmen in his siuaion.42

Te “de novo review” presens a much higher burden and leads o longer hearings han

oher sandards such as he subsanial evidence or abuse o discreion sandards, which

are common or cours ha review oher school board decisions ha are appealed such as

decisions abou suden discipline or curriculum.43

Tis sandard o review is only necessary because mos disrics do no have he evalua-

ion and documenaion sysems in place ha ensure and demonsrae ha every eacher

is reaed airly. I would be easier or he arbiraor or judge o presume a air processhad been ollowed i disrics had rigorous, annual evaluaions and required ha ouside,

exper evaluaors conduc some o he evaluaions. Peer assisance and review programs

also make de novo review less necessary since hey provide or an ouside review and check

on he principal’s perspecive, and give he eacher an opporuniy o improve.

Te hearing process is also lenghy because he person serving as ac nder usually does

no have a background in he eld o educaion. Arbiraors and hearing ocers who are

appoined by he school board o preside over dismissal cases in many disrics are reired

lawyers or judges wih experise in law bu no insrucional pracice.44 School board mem-

bers hearing dismissal cases are oen eleced ocials who may or may no have educa-

ional experise.45 So i akes a long ime o explain he conen o he cases o he hearingocers and why hey represen poor educaional pracice.46




Difficulty of winning cases

Disrics and principals are likely o lose a signican proporion o heir dismissal cases

even when hey inves he requisie ime and money. wo sudies by Te New eacher

Projec repored success raes or dismissals in selec disrics. Te success rae or dis-

missal cases ranged rom 5 percen o 35 percen beween 2000 and 2003 in one disric

hey examined.47 Hal o adminisraors in he more recen “ Widge Eec” sudy reporedha heir dismissal case yielded an oucome oher han dismissal.48 Te Los Angeles imes

invesigaion ound ha “alhough disrics generally press ahead wih only he sron-

ges cases, even hese ge knocked down more han a hird o he ime by he specially

convened review panels, which have he discreion o resore eachers’ jobs even when

grounds or dismissal are proved.”49

Te diculy o winning cases has o do wih a number o eaures o he dismissal process

in mos disrics. Firs, he sandard o “de novo review” makes cases more dicul o win.

In disrics in which arbiraors are involved, hey are generally no expers in educaion, so

i is dicul or hem o evaluae cases o educaional incompeence.50 In disrics in which

school board members decide cases, hey may also lack experise evaluaing insrucion.

Second, in disrics ha use arbiraors, hey are employed by boh he eacher union or

represenaive body and he disric and hereore have an ineres in pleasing boh sides.51

According o Mary Jo McGrah, an atorney specializing in employee perormance issues,

“arbiraors end o wan o spli he baby.”52 Teir endency is o ry o negoiae beween

he paries o nd a compromise.

Finally, in many o hese cases a eacher’s license can be revoked.53 Te sandard o review

is much higher because o he high sakes involved.54 Te success rae would likely be

much higher i cases or chronically ineecive eachers jus involved dismissing eachersrom a disric, raher han revoking licenses. Revoking licenses may be more appropriae

or inappropriae conduc and criminal oense cases.

School culture

Many principals aren’ used o managing he perormance o heir eaching sa and don’

have a good undersanding o wha ongoing supervision and monioring enails, parly

because o weak evaluaion sysems.55 Tey also aren’ used o diereniaing beween

eachers in erms o heir perormance because hey radiionally haven’ done so.56 Tis

lack o diereniaion has become embedded in he culure o schools and is a major bar-rier o principals iniiaing eacher dismissal proceedings, even when hey are warraned.

Probaionary eachers are even less likely o be red or poor perormance han enured

eachers according o naional esimaes, even hough probaionary eachers have ewer



Barrrs o ahr smssal n shool an sr pra | www.amranprogrss.o

legal proecions han enured ones. Tis inabiliy o dismiss ineecive probaionary

eachers is likely a resul o culural norms ha encourage school leaders o rea all each-

ers as i heir perormance is he same.

Oher researchers acknowledge he presence o confic avoidance among principals.

Dismissing an employee is a dicul and unpleasan ask in all elds. “Individuals are

predisposed o avoid unpleasanness in social encouners. Tey preer o be spared he emo-ional ordeal enailed in criicizing and nding aul wih he behavior o ohers.”57 A culure

o ear pervades schools and prevens principals rom aking acion agains ineecive each-

ers, according o McGrah, who has more han 30 years experience specializing in employee

perormance issues and legal mandaes in he school and workplace.58 Principals are araid

o having ough conversaions wih eachers, don’ know how o deliver eedback o aduls,

and are araid ha i hey elec o dismiss someone, hey will pu hemselves hrough

public scruiny. Tey may also worry abou a eacher’s eelings, or how he or she would nd

anoher job. Some principals may worry ha oher eachers would eel hreaened by heir

decision o dismiss a eacher and ha i would harm eacher morale. 59

Lack of effective replacements

Finally, in school disrics ha have diculy recruiing eachers, or recruiing eachers or

cerain subjecs, principals may be relucan o dismiss weak eachers. For example, a prin-

cipal in a very rural disric or oher disric ha has a small supply o poenial eachers

may be unlikely o dismiss a weak algebra or biology eacher because he or she is unlikely

o nd anoher in he near uure. Tis barrier o eacher dismissals is likely one o he

mos dicul ones o overcome.

Other strategies for removing ineffective teachers

Many adminisraors come up wih oher ways o remove ineecive eachers rom heir

posiions because o he barriers o dismissing hem, or example, ranserring eachers

wihin a school or o anoher school or reassigning hem o a noneaching posiion.60

Many principals in a sudy o sang rules in ve disrics conduced by Te New eacher

Projec in 2005 repored hey didn’ wan o hire he eachers who were orcibly rans-

erred ino heir schools, because hey may be eachers who oher principals waned o

remove rom heir buildings. “Almos wo-hirds (64 percen) o Wesern disric prin-

cipals and more han hal (55 percen) o Easern disric principals who ook volunary

ransers or excessed eachers during a hiring season said ha hey did no wish o haveone or more o hem.” 61




Barriers to teacher dismissalin statute and code

Te ime and cos o eacher dismissal cases and he diculy o winning hem are some-

imes relaed o sae saues and someimes o conracual erms ha unions and school

disrics have agreed o in collecive bargaining agreemens.

Tenure and dismissal statutes

Sae enure saues generally ail o dene a rigorous sandard or awarding enure and

dene incompeence vaguely. Many speciy due process righs and dismissal procedures

ha are ime consuming and cosly. Moreover, enure saues rarely connec eacher

evaluaion and dismissal processes o make i easier o remove eachers or poor peror-

mance. “Jus 13 saes speciy ha eachers who have been raed unsaisacory on muliple

evaluaions should be eligible or dismissal.”62 Tese atribues o sae saues conribue

o making eacher dismissal a rare even.

enure is “a erm denoing he conracual or sauory job proecions conerred on eachers

who have compleed a provisional phase o employmen” or wha is commonly reerred o as

he probaionary period.63 Almos all saes have enure laws and require ha school disrics

award enure.64

Once a eacher has been awarded enure, he or she may only be dismissed orcause and only aer prescribed due process procedures have been ollowed.65 Te probaion-

ary period ranges rom one year o ve years, bu in mos saes (43), eachers are awarded

enure aer hree years or less.66 enure is no supposed o be a guaranee o permanen

employmen, bu raher a guaranee ha due process procedures will be ollowed when a

eacher is dismissed. Bu in eec, i is oen a guaranee o permanen employmen.

Disrics in mos saes have he righ o re eachers wihou oering any noice or cause

during he probaionary period. Unorunaely, almos all probaionary eachers in mos

disrics receive enure wih litle consideraion or heir perormance. Only our saes

require ha some evidence o eacher perormance be considered in awarding enure—

Iowa, New Mexico, Norh Carolina, and Minnesoa.67 Probaionary eachers who don’seem o be suied or he proession would be dismissed i enure were a meaningul

decision poin and would no become ineecive enured eachers. So srenghening he

enure decision poin would likely reduce some percenage o ineecive eachers.




A better system

Tis paper has described he obsacles o dismissing chronically ineecive eachers

presened by curren sysems. A more promising sysem would provide meaningul

inormaion o eachers and principals abou a eacher’s perormance, helpul suppor

and opporuniies o grow, and a sreamlined sysem or dismissing chronically ineecive

eachers when necessary.

A meaningful tenure decision

Disrics would have high-qualiy inducion and menoring programs o improve new

eachers’ insrucional pracice. All new eachers would be given an experienced menor,

who has experise in her subjec and grade level and sucien ime o suppor new eachers.

All disrics would have meaningul evaluaion sysems ocused on proessional growh ha

provide eachers wih coninuous eedback, ideniy areas o srengh, and highligh areas

or improvemen. Proessional developmen would be ied o hese areas o improvemen.

Te probaionary period would be a leas hree years, during which eachers would be

observed a leas wice annually. Evaluaion sysems would consider suden achievemen

as a preponderan crierion. Probaionary eachers wih more han one poor observaionwould be given limied suppor and hen erminaed i hey do no improve. Currenly,

disrics are no aking advanage o his ime period o weed ou ineecive eachers.

Ongoing performance management

enured eachers would coninue o be evaluaed a leas annually and he evaluaion would

consis o a leas wo observaions. Each observaion would be ollowed by writen and ver-

bal eedback, and hereore eachers would receive coninued eedback on heir srenghs

and weaknesses. Currenly, mos eachers are no given his kind o eedback. For example,

in “Te Widge Eec” sudy, only 26 percen o eachers were given areas o work on inheir mos recen evaluaion.78 I is likely ha providing hones eedback o eachers would

increase he raes o low-perorming eachers who leave o heir own accord.



A br sysm | www.amranprogrss.o

Every eacher would be observed by more han one evaluaor. Evaluaors migh include

principals, assisan principals, deparmen heads or chairs, and eacher leaders. Tis pro-

cess would ensure eachers are evaluaed airly and ha heir evaluaions provide an objec-

ive and comprehensive assessmen o heir perormance. Te ideal sysem would include

an evaluaor ouside he locus o conrol o he principal o ensure objeciviy.

Proessional developmen would be ied o eachers’ idenied areas o weakness. One poorevaluaion would signal a need or assisance and suppor. Disrics would need o dene a

score on heir evaluaion sysem ha would rigger he need or remediaion, alhough he

principal would have some discreion in deermining wheher he eacher needs addiional

suppor or here were exenuaing circumsances ha led o he poor raing.

Help for chronically ineffective teachers

I is imporan o give eachers eedback on heir weaknesses and an opporuniy o

improve heir pracice beore making a decision abou dismissal. enured eachers also

have a legal righ o his noicaion and someimes remediaion as well. I is possible

ha here are eachers who are chronically ineecive because hey weren’ given eecive

raining or models o eecive insrucional pracice early in heir career.

A number o disrics have developed peer assisance and review programs—programs

ha hire exper eachers o menor, assis, and evaluae eiher new or sruggling each-

ers, or boh, and also o recommend eachers or dismissal who are unable o improve.79

A recen sudy led by Susan Moore Johnson a Harvard Universiy’s Projec on he

Nex Generaion o eachers analyzed he eaures o programs in seven disrics.80

Superinendens and union leaders inerviewed or he sudy were very posiive abou he

programs and el hey “improve insrucion, increase eacher proessionalism, change heculure o eaching, and improve labor-managemen relaions.81”

Te PAR programs in exisence, however, dismiss very ew eachers.82 I’s possible ha

he programs are providing sucien suppor o eachers o improve and hereore many

dismissals aren’ necessary. I’s also possible ha he exisence o hese programs creaes an

amosphere o suppor coupled wih accounabiliy ha leads eachers o exi volunarily

when hey realize hey aren’ eecive.

I’s also possible ha many o he curren PAR programs aren’ designed in ways ha allow

hem o mee heir poenial. Te peer review process should serve all o he eachers who

need he suppor, should be air o eachers, should be ecien, and should serve he su-dens’ bes ineress. Te disrics and unions joinly selec he consuling eachers in PAR

programs currenly in exisence. Tese consuling eachers should probably no be based

in he same school as he eacher needing remediaion so hey are an imparial person

involved in assessing he eacher’s perormance oher han he building principal. Tey

should also be exper eachers.




Te period o assisance should provide enough ime or he eacher o improve, bu should

no be overly lenghy because i is imporan o keep in mind ha he ineress o sudens

are a sake. An inervenion period o hree monhs o six monhs migh be appropriae.

I is also imporan o ensure ha eachers who need help are idenied or paricipaion

in PAR programs. Very ew eachers paricipae in many o he peer assisance programs

across he counry.83 Generally, principals mus ideniy he eachers or paricipaionor suppor he reerral, and some principals are relucan o be involved wih PAR or a

variey o reasons. Tey may wan o avoid confic, may no be aking sucien ime o

conduc he kinds o in-deph evaluaions ha are needed o ideniy eachers, or hey may

wan o be he sole insrucional leader in he school.84 In any case, PAR programs can’ be

successul i principals aren’ on board.

School disrics and unions migh also wan o consider having consuling eachers conduc

periodic evaluaions o all enured eachers in a disric as an ouside check on he principal

evaluaion. For example, in he Disric o Columbia’s new evaluaion sysem, wo o he ve

annual evaluaions o all eachers are conduced by exper educaors who are employed by

he disric, bu no a paricular school. Having an evaluaor ouside he school migh be an

eecive way o ideniy more eachers who should paricipae in peer assisance and review,

as principals may be relucan o ideniy eachers in heir own buildings.

Finally, i peer assisance programs are collaboraively implemened wih he local union

and dismissal is warraned, he union should agree no o cones he dismissal. In many o

he PAR programs in operaion union represenaives do no cones dismissals or eachers

who have paricipaed because he eacher has no procedural grounds or appeal.85 In he

ew cases where a eacher requess a hearing, i should be very shor, perhaps a day. Te

appeal process should no have o rehash he enire case o wheher he eacher is ineec-

ive, given he documenaion and suppor process provided by he peer review program.



conluson an poly rommnaons | www.amranprogrss.o

Conclusion and policyrecommendations

I is clear ha here is much room or reorming eacher dismissal processes in ways ha

proec eachers agains arbirary decisions and mee he bes ineress o sudens. Te

more promising sysem described above could be suppored by changes o policy a he

sae and local level, including changes o legislaion, policy, and collecive bargaining

conracs. Following are some poenial reorms ha migh resul in changes o all or some

o hese vehicles.

Federal

Te Obama adminisraion has adoped a number o policies and oered a number o

proposals ha emphasize eacher eeciveness and encourage saes and disrics o

improve he qualiy o eacher evaluaion sysems. As discussed earlier, he qualiy o

evaluaion sysems is one o he primary barriers o providing suppor or eachers who are

sruggling and o dismissing chronically ineecive eachers. A number o he reporing

requiremens or receip o Sae Fiscal Sabilizaion Funds will shed ligh on he qualiy

o eacher evaluaion sysems and how inormaion abou eachers’ perormance is being

used o inorm policy. For example, he SFSF requires saes o repor on he sysems used

o evaluae eachers, how eachers are raed on he sysems, wheher he inormaion isrepored publicly, wheher he inormaion is used o inorm eacher policies, and wheher

hey include suden achievemen oucomes or growh daa.

In addiion, wihin he Race o he op compeiion, saes will be evaluaed based on a

number o crieria relaed o he qualiy o eacher evaluaion sysems, how he inorma-

ion rom evaluaion sysems is used o make decisions abou eachers, and how enure

is awarded. Tere is also a crierion ocused on eacher dismissal: “removing ineecive

enured and unenured eachers and principals aer hey have had ample opporuniies o

improve, and ensuring ha such decisions are made using rigorous sandards and sream-

lined, ransparen, and air procedures.”

Te ederal governmen should coninue o provide incenives o saes and disrics o

improve heir evaluaion pracices and should also use incenives o encourage reorms o

he enure and dismissal processes. In addiion, ederal policy should:




Require saes receiving ile II unds o have meaningul requiremens or awarding

enure. Te adminisraion has proposed making ormula unding rom ile II o he

Elemenary and Secondary Educaion Ac, ederal unds inended o improve eacher and

principal qualiy, coningen on saes having srong eacher evaluaion sysems, as par

o is 2011 budge reques. Tis proposal would use ormula unds o leverage imporan

changes in eacher evaluaion pracices hroughou he counry. Te adminisraion could

go a sep urher by requiring saes receiving ile II unds o have meaningul require-mens or awarding enure and or disrics receiving ile II unds o have a rigorous

process in place or awarding enure.

Require granees o he proposed eacher and Leader Innovaion Fund o eiher have

a rigorous evaluaion sysem in place or o include he developmen o a more rigorous

evaluaion sysem and he sang and oher elemens needed o make i successul as par

o heir gran. Te Obama adminisraion has proposed a eacher and Leader Innovaion

Fund, modeled aer he exising eacher Incenive Fund, which would suppor compei-

ive grans o saes and disrics o reorm heir human capial sysems or eachers. Tis

program is a logical vehicle or encouraging innovaive and rigorous eacher evaluaion

pracices, since hey are he oundaion o so many oher reorms o eacher-relaed policies.

State

Sae laws can help o ensure ha evaluaion pracices are rigorous, ha he enure deci-

sion is based upon meaningul inormaion abou eacher perormance, and ha he

dismissal process or chronically ineecive eachers is air bu ecien.

Sae law should provide guidance o disrics o ensure heir evaluaion sysems are rigor-

ous. Sae guidelines should require ha disric evaluaion sysems draw rom muliplesources o inormaion and ha objecive measures o suden learning, measures o

eacher eeciveness derived rom achievemen es daa, and classroom observaions be

signican componens o evaluaion sysems. Saes should also require ha all each-

ers be evaluaed annually and ha new eachers are evaluaed biannually or are observed

several imes during he school year as par o an evaluaion process. Finally, hey should

require ha evaluaion sysems diereniae among eachers, and should encourage he

use o inormaion rom he evaluaion sysem o inorm eacher-relaed policies.

Sae law should require ha he enure decision is based upon meaningul evidence o

perormance. While sae saues speciy a number o requiremens relaed o he enure

process, hey rarely speciy ha he enure decision should be based upon a eacher’sperormance. Tis requiremen would go a long way oward ensuring ha only eecive

eachers receive enure. Evidence should include eacher evaluaions, suden growh on

sandardized ess, and oher measures o suden learning.




Sae law should ie he evaluaion process o he dismissal process. Dismissal should really

be he end resul o ongoing, poor perormance according o a high-qualiy evaluaion

sysem. Sae saue should make he link beween evaluaion and dismissal explici and

give deerence o resuls rom he evaluaion process in he dismissal hearing.

Saes should increase he probaionary period o somewhere beween hree and seven

years so ha school disrics have sucien ime o make an inormed decision abouawarding enure o a eacher. School disrics rarely have enough evidence abou a each-

er’s pracice o make a decision abou enure in wo years. enure should be an indicaion

ha eachers have reached a benchmark o eeciveness ha ew rs- or second-year

eachers are able o reach.

Sae saues should include poor perormance as a cause or dismissal in heir enure

saue. Te deniion o poor perormance should clearly indicae ha poor perormance

means boh ineecive insrucional pracice and ailure o promoe suden achievemen

and no oal incompeence or egregious conduc.

Sae saues may wan o dene hree disinc processes or dismissing 1) chronically

ineecive eachers, 2) eachers ha have inappropriae conduc or behavior, and 3) each-

ers ha have commited criminal acs. Tese groups o eachers are grouped ogeher in

mos sae saues, ye i makes litle sense o rea hem similarly. Sae saues should

dene processes ha make sense or each ype o oense. Te process or inappropriae

conduc or behavior should be much shorer and should require a shorer ime period or

documenaion. Perormance-relaed hearings should be buil upon a rigorous evaluaion

process and hereore should only involve a review o he dismissal process isel, raher

han a review o he meris o he case.

Sae laws should require ha disric-level dismissal hearings are compleed wihin areasonable ime period—perhaps 30 days o 60 days would be appropriae. I is cosly and

ime consuming o a principal and school disric o allow cases o drag on or a year or

more and does no bene anyone in he process. Moreover, his ime period needs o be

enorced by he sae, oherwise i is meaningless. Saes ha incur he cos o arbiraors

should reuse o pay or heir services beyond 60 days or one case.

Sae laws should allow only one appeal or enured eachers who are dismissed based on

poor perormance. I is exremely cosly or disrics o have o liigae muliple appeals,

and i a eacher has been dismissed and hen los an appeal i is likely ha he or she is a

chronically ineecive eacher.

Saes should require ha disrics repor he percen o eachers hey dismiss based on

perormance annually. Tis requiremen would draw atenion o he percen o eachers

dismissed based on perormance, and encourage disrics o examine hese numbers.




District



Disrics should ensure ha hey have high-qualiy evaluaion sysems and ha schools are

implemening hem as hey are inended. Disric sa should review school-level eacherevaluaion daa o ensure ha schools are diereniaing among eachers. Tey should

also rain school leaders in conducing evaluaions and in perormance managemen.

School sa involved in eacher evaluaions need o be rained o undersand he evalua-

ion insrumen hey are using, o conduc objecive and meaningul evaluaions, and o

provide useul eedback and suppor o eachers o help hem improve heir pracice.

Disrics should ensure he enure decision is meaningul, rigorous, and based on daa abou

eacher perormance. In mos disrics oday, enure indicaes he passage o ime, raher

han ha some benchmark o perormance has been me. Evidence should include eacher

evaluaions, suden growh on sandardized ess, and oher evidence o suden learning.


o creae sreamlined processes or sysems or removing chronically ineecive eachers.

One opion is o creae peer assisance and review programs in which maser eachers are

assigned o suppor and evaluae eachers who are sruggling. eachers who don’ improve

should be recommended or dismissal. Te dismissal process should hen be expedied or

hose eachers who have been hrough he process and haven’ improved. “Because PAR

helps o ensure ha eachers’ due process righs are me, unions can saisy heir duy o

air represenaion wihou acing legal challenges.”86 Tereore, he union should agree no

o challenge dismissal decisions o eachers who have gone hrough he PAR process.

Disrics should have a separae process or dealing wih unproessional conduc and inap-

propriae behavior. Disrics should no inves scarce resources in a remediaion plan or

eachers who have been excessively lae or absen, or example. Tese eachers should be

given a warning and hen erminaed i hey don’ improve.


o remove eachers who have been excessed or laid o rom he payroll aer one year. I

eachers don’ ge new jobs wihin a year, i is likely eiher ha no school wans o hire

hem and ha hey are no eecive or ha here isn’ an appropriae posiion or hem in

he disric. In eiher case, he disric should no have o ace he burden o paying hem

or more han a year when hey are no eaching sudens, as is currenly he case. Disricsshould work wih unions o negoiae removing hese eachers rom he payroll aer one

year as par o heir collecive bargaining agreemen.




Disrics should coninue o expand eecive recruimen and hiring pracices. While his

recommendaion could be and has been he subjec o whole repors,87 he poin is ha

disrics and schools should have inenional sraegies or recruiing high-qualiy candi-

daes ha mee he needs o heir schools. Wihou pools o promising eaching candidaes

available, principals will be relucan o dismiss ineecive eachers.

Disrics should provide school leaders wih raining and assisance in he disric’s dis-missal process. Disric sa should help school leaders undersand heir disric’s process

or dismissing chronically ineecive eachers and wha resources are available o hem o

help hem in he process. In many cases, school disrics lose heir cases because principals

did no ollow he correc procedures.88

Principals and oher evaluaors also need raining and suppor in having ough conversa-

ions wih eachers. No every chronically low-perorming eacher needs o be dismissed.

Some can be counseled o choose anoher career or anoher posiion wihin he disric

(ha does no involve eaching).

School



Principals and school leaders mus inves ime in conducing evaluaions, providing

meaningul eedback o eachers, and providing suppor o eachers who are sruggling.

Tey also mus be willing o have dicul conversaions wih low-perorming eachers.

A high-qualiy evaluaion and perormance managemen sysem is dependen or is suc-

cess on a srong and engaged principal and school leadership eam.




Endnotes

1 “President Obama’s Remarks to the Hispanic Chamber o Commerce,”The New York Times, March 10, 2009, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10text-obama.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1.

2 Jane Hannaway, orthcoming CALDER Working Paper #41 (Washington: UrbanInstitute, orthcoming); Daniel Aaronson, Lisa Barrow, and William Sander,“Teachers and Student Achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools,”Jour-nal o Labor Economics 25 (1) (2007): 95-135; Steven Rivkin, Eric Hanushek, andJohn Kain, “Teachers, Schools and Academic Achievement,”Econometrica73 (2)(2005): 417-58; Jonah E. Rocko, “The Impact o Individual Teachers on StudentAchievement: Evidence rom Panel Data,”American Economic Review 94 (2)(May 2004): 247-252; Robert Gordon, Thomas J. Kane, and Douglas O. Staiger,“Identiying Eective Teachers using Perormance on the Job” (Washington: TheBrookings Institution, 2006).

3 Allan Odden and James A. Kelly, “What is SMHC?” (Madison: Consortium orPolicy Research in Education, Wisconsin Center or Education Research, Schoolo Education, University o Wisconsin-Madison, June 2008); Craig Jerald, “Alignedby Design, How Teacher Compensation Reorm Can Support and ReinorceOther Educational Reorms” (Washington: Center or A merican Progress, 2009).

4 Ibid.

5 U.S. Department o Education, National Center or Education Statistics, Schoolsand Stang Survey (SASS), Public School District Data File, 2007-08 , Table 8. InPatrick McGuinn, “Ringing the Bell or K-12 Teacher Tenure Reorm” (Washington:Center or American Progress, 2010).

6 Jane G. Coggshall, Ph.D. and others, “Supporting Teacher Talent: The View romGeneration Y” (New York and Naperville: Public Agenda and Learning PointAssociates, 2009); Daniel Weisberg and others,“The Widget Eect, Our NationalFailure to Acknowledge and Act on Di erences in Teacher Eectiveness” (NewYork: The New Teacher Project, 2009); Ann Duett and others, “Waiting to BeWon Over, Teachers Speak on the Proession, Unions, and Reorm” (Washington:Education Sector, 2008).

7 Coggshall, Ph.D. and others, “Supporting Teacher Talent: The View rom Genera-tion Y.”

8 Weisberg and others, “The Widget Eect, Our National Failure to Acknowledgeand Act on Dierences in Teacher Eectiveness,” p. 16.

9 Jean Johnson, Anna Maria Arumi, and Amber Ott, “Reality Check 2006, Issue No.4, The Insiders: How Principals and Superintendents See Public Education Today”(New York: Education Insights at Public Agenda, 2006), p. 17.


11 Gordon, Kane, and Staiger, “Identiying Eective Teachers using Perormance onthe Job.”

12 Eric A. Hanushek, “Teacher Deselection.” In Dan Goldhaber and Jane Hannaway,eds., Creating A New Teaching Proession (Washington: Urban Institute Press,2009).

13 Interview with Eric Hirsch, Teacher Magazine, March 1, 2008, available at http://www.edweek.org/tsb/articles/2008/03/01/02hirsch.h01.html.

14 Ibid.

15 Hannaway, orthcoming CALDER Working Paper #41.

16 U.S. Department o Education, National Center or Education Statistics, Schoolsand Stang Survey (SASS), Public School District Data File.

17 C. Kirabo Jackson and Elias Bruegmann, “Teaching Students and Teaching EachOther: The Importance o Peer Learning or Teachers.” Working Paper 15202(Cambridge: National Bureau o Economic Research, 2009).

18 Jean Johnson and others, “Teaching or a Living: How Teachers See the Proes-sion Today” (Washington: Public Agenda and Learning Point Associates, 2009).

19 Ibid.

20 Randi Weingarten, “A New Path Forward, Four Approaches to Quality Teachingand Better Schools,” Speech at National Press Club, January 12, 2010.

21 The Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 237, Defnitions o Statutory Terms, 237.4,available at http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/022/chapter237/chap237toc.html#237.4.

22 Tennessee Code, Title 49, Chapter 5, Part 5, 49-5-501.

23 Daniel Goldhaber and Michael Hansen, “Assessing the Potential o Using ValueAdded-Estimates o Teacher Job Perormance or Making Tenure Decisions,”National Center or Analysis o Longitudinal Data in Education Research, brie

three (Washington: Urban Institute, November, 2008), available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001265.

24 Weisberg and others, “The Widget Eect, Our National Failure to Acknowledgeand Act on Dierences in Teacher Eectiveness”; Thomas Toch and Robert Roth-man, “Rush to Judgment: Teacher Evaluation in Public Education” (Washington:Education Sector, 2008); Morgaen Donaldson, “So Long Lake Wobegon, UsingTeacher Evaluation to Raise Teacher Quality” (Washington: Center or AmericanProgress, 2009).


26 U.S. Department o Education, Schools and Stafng Survey, Public Principal Survey (2008).

27 Ibid.

28 Jessica Levin, Jennier Mulhern, and Joan Schunck, “Unintended Consequences,The Case or Reorming the Stang Rules in Urban Teachers Union Contracts”(New York: New Teacher Project, 2005), p. 18.

29 Scott Reeder, “Cost to fre a tenured teacher? More than $219,000,” The HiddenCost o Failure, available at http://thehiddencostsotenure.com/stories/?prcss=display&id=295712.

30 Frank Eltman, Associated Press, “Firing tenured teachers isn’t just dicult, itcosts you,” USA Today , June 30, 2008, available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-06-30-teacher-tenure-costs_N.htm.

31 Ibid.

32 Steven Brill, “The Rubber Room, The Battle over New York City’s Worst Teachers,”The New Yorker , August 31, 2009.

33 Ibid.

34 “FAILURE GETS A PASS: Firing tenured teachers can be a costly and tortuoustask,” The Los Angeles Times, May 3, 2009, available at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers3-2009may03,0,5765040,ull.story.

35 Beth Barret, “LAUSD’s Dance o the Lemons, Why fring the desk-sleepers,burnouts, hotheads and other ailed teachers is all but impossible” LA Weekly ,February 11, 2010, available at http://www.laweekly.com/2010-02-11/news/lausd-s-dance-o-the-lemons.


37 Lawrence F. Rossow and James O. Tate, “The Law o Teacher Evaluation” SecondEdition, (Dayton: Education Law Association, 2003).

38 Telephone conversation with Daniel Weisberg, Vice President or Policy, Decem-ber 3, 2009.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-06-30-teacher-tenure-costs_N.htm






ennos | www.amranprogrss.o

39 Levin, Mulhern, and Schunk, “Unintended Consequences, The Case or Reorm-ing the Stang Rules in Urban Teachers Union Contracts.”

40 Telephone conversation with Daniel Weisberg, Vice President or Policy, the NewTeacher Project, December 3, 2009.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid.

43 David L. Dagley and Carole A. Veir, “Subverting the Academic AbstentionDoctrine in Teacher Evaluation: How Reorm Legislation Deeats Itsel,”BrighamYoung University Education and Law Journal (2002); Telephone conversationwith Daniel Weisberg, Vice President or Policy, the New Teacher Project, Decem-

ber 3, 2009.

44 Telephone conversation with Elizabeth Arons, Senior Human Resources PolicyAdvisor, New York City Public Schools and the Gates Foundation, September 30,2009; Telephone conversation with Mar y Jo McGrath, attorney at law, ounderand President o McGrath Systems Inc., December 22, 2009, and January 20,2010.

45 Telephone conversation with Elizabeth Arons, Senior Human Resources PolicyAdvisor, New York City Public Schools and the Gates Foundation, September 30,2009; Telephone conversation with Mar y Jo McGrath, attorney at law, ounderand President o McGrath Systems Inc., December 22, 2009.

46 Telephone conversation with Vice President or Policy, Daniel Weisberg, theNew Teacher Project, December 3, 2009; Telephone conversation with Mar yJo McGrath, attorney at law, ounder and President o McGrath Systems Inc.,December 22, 2009.

47 Levin, Mulhern, and Schunk, “Unintended Consequences, The Case or Reorm-ing the Stang Rules in Urban Teachers Union Contracts,” p. 19.

48 Weisberg and others, “The Widget Eect, Our National Failure to Acknowledge

and Act on Dierences in Teacher Eectiveness,” p. 17.

49 “FAILURE GETS A PASS: Firing tenured teachers can be a costly and tortuoustask,” The Los Angeles Times.

50 Telephone conversation with Vice President or Policy, Daniel Weisberg, theNew Teacher Project, December 3, 2009; Telephone conversation with Mar y JoMcGrath, December 22, 2009.

51 Ibid; Telephone conversation with Elizabeth Arons, Senior Human ResourcesPolicy Advisor, New York City Public Schools and the Gates Foundation, Septem-ber 30, 2009.

52 Telephone conversation with Mary Jo McGrath, attorney at law, ounder andPresident o McGrath Systems Inc.

53 Telephone conversation with Vice President or Policy, Daniel Weisberg, the NewTeacher Project, December 3, 2009.

54 Ibid.

55 Telephone conversation with Mary Jo McGrath, attorney at law, ounder and

President o McGrath Systems Inc.56 Weisberg and others, “The Widget Eect, Our National Failure to Acknowledge

and Act on Dierences in Teacher Eectiveness.”

57 Edwin M. Bridges, The Incompetent Teacher, Managerial Responses (Bristol:The Falmer Press, 1992), p. 25.


59 Suzanne R. Painter, “Principals’ Perceptions o Barriers to Teacher Dismissal,”Journal o Personnel Evaluation in Education 14 (3)(2000): 253-264; Bridges, The Incompetent Teacher, Managerial Responses.

60 Bridges, The Incompetent Teacher, Managerial Responses; Brendan P. Menuey,“Teachers’ Perceptions o Proessional Incompetence and Barriers to theDismissal Process,” Journal o Personnel Evaluation in Education (2005); Levin,Mulhern, and Schunck, “Unintended Consequences, The Case or Reorming theStang Rules in Urban Teachers Union Contracts.”

61 Levin, Mulhern, and Schunck, “Unintended Consequences, The Case or Reorm-ing the Stang Rules in Urban Teachers Union Contracts,” p. 15.

62 National Counci l on Teacher Qualit y, “2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook,National Summary” (Washington: National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010), p. 6.

63 Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, Martha M. McCarthy, and Stephen B. Thomas, Public School Law (Boston: Pearson Education Inc., 2004) p. 284. In Raegen Miller andRobin Chait, “Teacher Turnover, Tenure Policies, and the Distribution o TeacherQuality” (Washington: Center or American Progress, December 2008).

64 Ibid.

65 Ibid.

66 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook,National Summary ( Washington: National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010) p. 6.

67 Ibid, p. 176.

68 Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, and Thomas,Public School Law , p. 284.

69 Louis Fischer, David Schimmel, and Leslie R. Stellman, Teachers and the Law (London: Pearson Education Inc, 2007); Telephone conversation with Mar y JoMcGrath, January 20, 2010.

70 Fischer, Schimmel, and . Stellman, Teachers and the Law , p. 32.

71 Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, and Thomas,Public School Law , p. 284.

72 National Council on Teacher Quality, “2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook,National Summary,” p. 216.

73 Michael Colasanti, “Teacher Tenure/Continuing Contract Laws” (Denver:Education Commission o the States, 2007), available at http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/75/64/7564.htm.

74 Fischer, Schimmel, and Stellman, Teachers and the Law .

75 National Council on Teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook,

National Summary ( Washington: National Council on Teacher Quality, 2010), p.216.

76 Emily Cohen, Kate Walsh and RiShawn Biddle, “Invisible Ink in Collective Bargain-ing: Why Key Issues Are Not Addressed” (Washington: National Council onTeacher Quality, 2008), p. 8.

77 National Council on Teacher Quality, TR3 database; Telephone conversation withMary Jo McGrath, attorney at law, ounder and President o McGrath SystemsInc., December 22, 2009.


79 Harvard Graduate School o Education, “A User’s Guide to Peer Assistance andReview,” available at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/par/parino/.

80 Ibid.

81 Ibid.

82 Stephen Sawchuk, “Peer Review Undergoing Revitalization,” Education Week ,November 18, 2009.

83 Ibid.

84 Email rom Susan Moore Johnson, February 3, 2010.

85 Ibid.

86 Harvard Graduate School o Education, “A User’s Guide to Peer Assistance andReview,” p. 11.

87 See or example Levin, Mulhern, and Schunck, “Unintended Consequences:The Case or Reorming the Stang Rules in Urban Teachers Union Contracts”;Jessica Levin and Meredith Quinn, “Missed Opportunities: How We Keep High-Quality Teachers Out o Urban Classrooms” (New York: The New Teacher Project,2003).





Acknowledgments

Te Cener or American Progress hanks he Bil l and Melinda Gaes Foundaion or

generously providing suppor or his paper.

Te auhor would like o hank Saba Bireda o CAP or her legal advice, research assis-

ance, and review and eedback. Te auhor would also like o hank Elizabeh Arons o New York Ciy Public Schools and he Gaes Foundaion, Cynhia Brown and R aegen

Miller o CAP, Susan Moore Johnson o Harvard Universiy, and Daniel Weisberg o he

New eacher Projec or heir invaluable review and eedback. Te auhor would like o

hank he ollowing individuals or paricipaing in inerviews and oering heir exper

knowledge and experience on he opic: Elizabeh Arons, Jason Kamras, Daniel Weisberg,

Dave Schimmel, Mary Jo McGrah, and Brad Jupp.

About the author

Robin Chai is he Associae Direcor or eacher Qualiy a American Progress, where

she ocuses on eacher qualiy issues, paricularly as hey aec disadvanaged sudens. In

his posiion, Chai wries columns and papers, develops legislaive proposals, and plans

panel discussions and meeings.

Prior o joining American Progress, Chai was an independen consulan and worked wih

Pracical Sraegy, LLC, and Cross and Jous, LLC, o conduc research and wrie repors

or nonpro organizaions and governmen agencies, including he Naional Governor’s

Associaion, he Naional High School Alliance, he Corporaion or Naional Service,

and ohers. Prior o ha, Chai was a D.C. eaching Fellow and hird grade eacher in he

Disric o Columbia. She also has augh remedial reading a Maya Angelou Charer School.Chai also served as a program analys in he U.S. Deparmen o Educaion’s Planning

and Evaluaion Service, where she designed and managed evaluaions o ederal educaion

programs and wroe secions o he congressionally mandaed Naional Assessmen o ile I

repors and oher Deparmen o Educaion-issued repors. Chai holds a maser’s degree in

eaching rom American Universiy, a maser’s in public policy rom Georgeown Universiy,

and a bachelor o ars in poliical science rom Rugers Universiy.



The Center or American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute

dedicated to promoting a strong, just and ree America that ensures opportunity

or all. We believe that Americans are bound together by a common commitment to

these values and we aspire to ensure that our national policies relect these values.

We work to ind progressive and pragmatic solutions to signiicant domestic and

international problems and develop policy proposals that oster a government that

is “o the people, by the people, and or the people.”

removing chronically ineffective teachers

Documents