www.americanprogress.org

istockph

oto

Devil in the DetailsAn Analysis of State Teacher Dismissal Laws

Saba Bireda June 2010

Devil in the DetailsAn Analysis of State Teacher Dismissal Laws

Saba Bireda June 2010

Contents 1 Introduction and summary

3 How did we get here?

5 How state law shapes teacher dismissal

13 Obstacles to an efficient and effective dismissal process

20 Toward reform

26 Conclusion

27 Endnotes

introduction and summary | www.americanprogress.org 1

Introduction and summary

The teacher dismissal process, once largely unexamined, is quickly becoming a hotly debated area of education policy. Newspapers across the country regularly publish reports on the expense and time associated with dismissing teachers.1 Steven Brill’s “The Rubber Room,” an exposé on the seemingly neverending process of terminat-ing teachers in New York City, brought the topic onto the national stage.2

Federal and state policymakers have also begun calling for reform. Both President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have discussed the need to make dismissal a more efficient process.3 American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten has also acknowledged the “glacial” speed of the dismissal process in many districts and committed her union to working on reform efforts.4

The push for dismissal reform comes as districts across the country focus on improving human capital systems. Districts recognize that an inability to dis-miss poor-performing teachers undermines efforts to ensure that every student is taught by a highly effective instructor. As districts begin implementing more effective evaluation systems that better identify both low- and high-performing teachers, changes will have to be made to dismissal processes to exit those teachers in a fair and efficient manner.

Budget concerns also propel this discussion. Litigating a dismissal case can cost a district more than $100,000 in legal fees. Most state tenure laws also provide compensation throughout the dismissal process, requiring districts pay the salaries of teachers they do not believe should be in the classroom for months, even years. More expedient dismissal hearings may mean significant savings, particularly in hard financial times when districts struggle to retain their best performing teachers.

The discussion of dismissal reform invokes a strong response from teachers and their unions. Dismissal reform involves the restructuring of due process pro-cedures that teachers feel are their only protection against the whims of school

2 center for American progress | Devil in the Details

administrators. These fears are not always unfounded and due process procedures must remain in place that protect teachers from arbitrary and prejudicial manage-ment decisions. Dismissal reform should not be focused on eliminating due process for teachers but rather on creating more efficient methods of identifying and termi-nating the employment of those teachers who no longer belong in the classroom.

As school districts and unions begin to confront the issue of dismissal reform, it is important to note that the dismissal process does not begin and end at a hearing. Teacher dismissal occurs within a complicated web of school-level management techniques, evaluation systems, local district policies, collective bargaining agree-ments, and state tenure laws. An efficient dismissal process depends on strong school leaders who can identify poor performers, assist in remediation, and rec-ommend termination. The process also requires high quality evaluation tools that provide fair notice to teachers of their insufficiencies, a framework and support for improvement, and reliable documentation of a teacher’s performance over a period of time. The Center for American Progress has provided close analysis of the tenure process and other facets of the dismissal process in previous reports.5

The starting point for dismissal reform lies in the state laws that give teachers spe-cific protections when they are dismissed. This report will explain how state law shapes the dismissal process, outline the dismissal process in several states, and analyze the provisions common in state law that make teacher dismissal difficult. The paper also suggests reforms such as:

• State laws should articulate different dismissal procedures that correspond to the particular performance issues for which the teacher is being dismissed.

• States should consider establishing a state-run system of selecting hearing offi-cers to ensure efficiency and consistency of results.

• States should consider requiring districts and teachers to participate in non-binding mediation sessions to encourage alternative resolutions beyond those offered through the traditional disciplinary process.

• States should clarify vague legal terms and processes in state laws that contribute to inefficient hearings.

•State and district policymakers should work collaboratively with unions to create fair and efficient dismissal procedures that incorporate peer assistance and review programs.

how did we get here? | www.americanprogress.org 3

How did we get here?

The dismissal procedures embedded in teacher tenure laws were implemented to protect teachers from unfair and discriminatory management practices. Most tenure laws were enacted well before the passage of federal and state civil rights legislation that protect employees from wrongful and discriminatory termination.6 Tenure protections have remained in state law despite efforts to repeal or streamline the pro-cedures originally put into place.7 Tenure supporters argue that complex protections are needed to protect the academic freedom of teachers and guard against termina-tion based on personal and political conflicts with school administrators.8

Attempts to reform teacher tenure laws have often focused on eliminating due process rights for teachers while efforts to defend tenure laws overemphasize the need for strict adherence to complicated procedures. Neither approach can make up for a lack of good policy around teacher selection, evaluation, and professional development. In the absence of selective hiring and tenure decisions, ongoing evaluation and feedback, and targeted professional development, the dismissal hearing can become the first place a teacher’s performance is seriously discussed. Progress in these other areas of human capital policy is necessary to facilitate reform of the dismissal process. Teachers will remain hesitant to see changes made to tenure laws until they feel that they have been evaluated according to reliable tools and provided with a meaningful attempt at improvement.

Many districts are making steady improvement in the policy areas that impact dismissal. The District of Columbia Public School system introduced in 2009 a new evaluation system, IMPACT, which requires at least five observations of tenured teachers annually.9 Numerous unions around the country, most recently Philadelphia and New Haven, Connecticut, have implemented Peer Assistance and Review programs that give unions a more progressive role in the remediation and dismissal process by allowing highly effective teachers to evaluate and coach struggling teachers. The Los Angeles Unified School District recently announced the dismissal of more than 110 nontenured teachers this year due to low perfor-mance issues, nearly three times the number of probationary teachers the district

4 center for American progress | Devil in the Details

typically dismisses annually.10

State policymakers should begin examining state statutes governing dismissal pro-cedures in light of these significant policy changes to see how they can be revised to better complement other human capital reforms. The next section explains how current state law shapes the teacher dismissal process.

Overview

how state law shapes teacher dismissal | www.americanprogress.org 5

How state law shapes teacher dismissal

The process of dismissing public school teachers, unlike that of private sector employees and even many public sector employees, is prescribed by state law. Generally, state law differentiates the process for dismissing a tenured teacher from that of a probationary teacher. Tenured teachers are entitled to distinct protections and benefits, including dismissal procedures nontenured teachers do not enjoy. While it is easier for districts to dismiss nontenured teachers, dismissal rates for nontenured teachers are also low.11 Using the tenure decision to tightly control entrance into the profession may decrease the number of teachers who end up being poor performers subject to dismissal.12

The U. S. Supreme Court has recognized that tenured teachers have a property inter-est in their employment that guarantees constitutional due process protections.13 Therefore, at a minimum, a tenured teacher cannot be dismissed without notice and an opportunity to be heard. State laws expand on these basic due process principles and often provide more detailed instructions on the process. Collective bargaining agreements may also add another layer of procedure, especially in regard to remedia-tion and responses to allegations of misconduct.14

The dismissal process typically begins at the district level with an administrator giving a teacher notice of her dismissal and an explanation of the behaviors that led to dismissal. The teacher is also given information about her right to have a hearing. If the teacher does not take advantage of the hearing process, the dismissal stands. If the teacher chooses to have a hearing, the district will follow the procedures set out in state law.

These procedures, discussed in the next section, are at the heart of the debate over teacher tenure and dismissal reform. Several questions should be considered when examining the process on the state level and considering the places where reform is needed. What protections do teachers actually need to guard against arbitrary employment decisions? What parts of the process render it inefficient and unwork-able? Does the process facilitate the expedient exit of teachers who commit crimes or other serious acts of misconduct?

Dismissal procedures from all 50 states and the District of Columbia were examined for

6 center for American progress | Devil in the Details

this paper. Common elements of the laws are discussed in the following sections.

Dismissal procedure in statute and code

Cause for dismissal

Teacher dismissal laws list the reasons why a teacher can be dismissed and school districts are confined to dismissing teachers for these reasons.15 Typical offenses include incompetency, insubordination, immorality, or unprofessional conduct. Many state laws also allow teachers to be dismissed for “just” or “good” cause, allowing school boards to dismiss teachers for other reasons not specifically listed in the law.

A school district must show there is sufficient “cause” to dismiss the teacher in order to prevail at a dismissal hearing. Dismissal laws rarely provide guidance or definition explaining what constitutes a dismissal worthy offense. So while a district may consider the action of refusing to adhere to a particular instructional program as “insubordination,” there may not be sufficient guidance in the law to determine whether the teacher’s actions actually meet the standard. Courts are often tasked with determining what actions constitute a dismissible offense.

This lack of definition can be particularly problematic when a teacher is dismissed for poor performance in the classroom. Poor instructional performance falls under “incompetence” or “inefficiency” in many states and few state laws define the term. Courts have interpreted incompetency to be a lack of subject content knowledge, a failure to manage one’s classroom or maintain records of student performance, and unreasonable discipline.16 Determining that a teacher’s performance consti-tutes “incompetence” may prove to be difficult in the absence of case law providing specific interpretation of the term. Districts can offer evidence of evaluations and specific incidents of poor performance but without a clear definition of incompe-tence, their interpretation may be subject to much debate in the hearing process.

The hearing process

Notice

A tenured teacher must be given notice that the district intends to pursue his dis-missal. Notice must include the offense for which the teacher is being dismissed and information about the teacher’s right to a hearing. The purpose of giving

how state law shapes teacher dismissal | www.americanprogress.org 7

notice is to allow teachers to clearly understand the charges against them so that they may answer those charges at the hearing.17

Many courts have found that a teacher must have an opportunity to correct the behavior that may lead to dismissal before a district can give the teacher notice.18 While the remediation process is usually applied to instructional performance, courts have found other behaviors to be remediable such as not following school procedures.19 Some state laws even provide for a specific statutory timeline for remediation. For example, California requires a 45-calendar day remediation period before termination for unprofessional conduct and a 90-day period for unsatisfactory performance.20 Local contracts may also articulate a particular pro-cess of remediation. If state law or district policies require remediation, the district cannot pursue dismissal if a teacher is not given this time to improve.

The quality of the remediation process can become a large part of the decision of whether a teacher should be dismissed or not. Not only must a district show that it gave a teacher notice of performance issues, but the district must also show what steps it took to remediate the teacher and then demonstrate that cause remains for dismissal after the remediation period.21

Fact finder

The school district, as the teacher’s employer must “prove” the case for dismissal to the school board, which hears the case in a district-level dismissal hearing. A school board may choose to actually hear the case or it may nominate a hearing officer or a subset of the board to perform this function. Dismissal may also be contested through arbitration and a few states have also moved to appointing administrative law judges to hear dismissal cases.

The fact finder in a dismissal case, whether a board, hearing officer, arbitrator, or administrative law judge, is responsible for conducting the hearing and ultimately determining if the facts presented by the school district merit dismissal.

The dismissal process may differ depending on who is acting as a fact finder. A local school board, with elected membership, may be prone to conflicts of interest, accusations of bias, and concerns about local politics.22 Such concerns prompt many school boards to take advantage of employing a hearing officer to conduct the hearing while leaving the final vote to the board. State law often empowers a teacher to co-select the hearing officer or arbitrator with the district to ease con-cerns about partiality. The resulting selection process can be lengthy.

8 center for American progress | Devil in the Details

While bias and local politics may be a concern for school board hearings, a separate arbitra-tion process has its own set of challenges. Commentators have observed that some inde-pendent arbitrators may be overly concerned with reaching compromise or have a financial interest in prolonging the process.23

The fact finder will also hear cases involving instructional performance. The fact finder is asked to determine whether a district’s assess-ment of a teacher’s effectiveness is correct, in addition to ensuring that the district provided due process to the teacher. Fact finders make important decisions about a teacher’s effective-ness but may not have any relevant experience in classroom instruction or management. State laws that do list qualifications for arbitrators and hearing officers rarely require educational expertise. Instead, they focus on membership in arbitration or bar associations and past experi-ence in employment matters.24

At the hearing

State law also guides the procedures used to commence and conduct a dismissal hearing. These rules may have implications for how long the hearing lasts, what type of evidence can be presented, who can testify, and what testimony they can give.

Prehearing conferences: At least two states, New York and Colorado, require the teacher and district officials to attend a prehearing conference. The Colorado law states that one of the purposes of the prehearing conference is to “limit, to the extent possible, the amount of evidence to be presented at the hearing.”25

Step One

The secretary of the school board forwards a copy of the dismissal hearing notice to the State Board of Education.

Step Two

The State Board of Education provides a list of five prospective, impartial hearing officers to the teacher and board within five days after receiving the hearing notice. Each person on the list must be accredited by a national arbitration organization and have had a minimum of five years of experience directly related to labor and employment relations matters between educa-tional employers and educational employees or their exclusive bargaining representatives.

Step Three

The board and the teacher or their legal representatives, within three days, alternately strike one name from the list until only one name remains. The teacher has the right to proceed first with the striking.

Step Four

The board and the teacher have the right within three days of receiving the first list provided by the State Board of Education to reject all prospective hearing officers named on the first list and require the State Board of Educa-tion to provide a second list of five prospective, impartial hearing officers, none of whom were named on the first list.

Step Five

The State Board of Education provides the second list of five prospective, impartial hearing officers within five days of receiving this request for a second list. The procedure for selecting a hearing officer from the second list is the same as the procedure for the first list.

OR

The board and the teacher can mutually agree to select an impartial hearing officer who is not on a list received from the State Board of Education either by direct appointment by the parties or by using procedures for the appoint-ment of an arbitrator established by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service or the American Arbitration Association. The parties must notify the State Board of Education of their intent to select a hearing officer using an alternative procedure within three days of receiving a list of prospective hearing officers from the State Board of Education.

Source: 105 ILCS 5/24-12

* An alternative process is available for teachers in cities with a population over 500,000.

Figure 1

Choosing a Hearing Officer for Dismissal Hearings in Illinois

how state law shapes teacher dismissal | www.americanprogress.org 9

Discovery: Many state laws allow for formal discovery to occur prior to the dismissal hearing. Discovery refers to the process by which adverse parties share information in anticipation of the hearing. Lawyers depend on discovery to help prepare to defend against arguments and evidence offered during the hearing. Parties may be required to provide a list of witnesses, interrogatories (a list of questions the opposing party is asked to answer prior to the hearing), copies of documents, and other materials during the discovery period. 26 Witnesses from either side may also be asked to sit for depositions, where they provide testimony in advance of the hearing.27

Restrictions on evidence presented: District-level hearings are generally con-ducted without strict adherence to the formal rules of evidence that courts follow. This means that hearing officers can liberally decide what evidence can be pre-sented and which witnesses can testify at the hearing. State law may provide some general guidance, for example, Kansas law instructs a hearing officer to exclude evi-dence if the value of the evidence is outweighed by the time it will take to present.28

A few states restrict the amount of evidence and witnesses presented. For example, dismissal decisions in Arizona cannot be based on evidence related to classroom performance occurring more than four years before the notice was given.29 Colorado law restricts each party to presenting 10 witnesses.30Absent such guidelines, hearing officers can allow both parties to present unlimited amounts of evidence and witnesses leading to longer and unfocused hearings.

Standard of review and burden: The fact finder will review the evidence presented in the case de novo—or anew—with no deference to the district’s recommenda-tion of dismissal. The school district generally carries the burden of “proving” that the teacher should be dismissed. The district must show, through evidence, that the teacher’s behavior or performance merits dismissal. The teacher must be able to rebut the evidence the district presents or the dismissal will stand. At least one state, Massachusetts, also asks that arbitrators consider “the best interest of the pupils” and the “need for elevation of performance standards,” when reviewing dismissal decisions.31

There may be additional requirements for the district to prove its case, especially in regard to dismissal for poor instructional performance. A district may be required to show that the teacher was evaluated according to state standards and provide documentation of the teacher’s lack of progress after being notified of her performance problems.

10 center for American progress | Devil in the Details

Determination: The hearing officer, board, or administrative law judge, will issue findings and a decision at the conclusion of the hearing. Some states only allow for a decision of retention or dismissal,32 while others may have a process for suspen-sion or probation.33 The fact finder is typically required to substantiate the ruling with specific facts presented in hearing. If a school board has deferred the fact-finding power to a hearing officer or subset of the board, a final board vote may be necessary to officially dismiss the teacher.

Statutory timelines: Many states attempt to control the length of the hearing by imposing deadlines at points during the dismissal process. Teachers must formally notify district officials if they wish to have a hearing and the hearing must be sched-uled by a certain date, depending on when the district receives notification. State law also gives the fact finder a set amount of time in which to make a decision fol-lowing the hearing. For example, Nevada gives hearing officers 30 days to conduct a hearing and 15 days to report findings after the hearing’s conclusion.34 Only one state, Colorado, imposes an actual time restriction on the length of hearings; hear-ings must be completed within six days unless extended by the hearing officer.35 These guidelines could help to shorten the dismissal process, if properly enforced.

Appeals process

The hearing provided at the district level is the first level of review of a district’s decision to dismiss a teacher. A teacher usually has the right to appeal to a state district court if the teacher loses at the district level. Some states build in an inter-mediate level of appeal with a state commission or board. In Georgia, for example, the state board of education hears appeals from local school boards.36 A teacher can then appeal the decision of the state board to a local district court.

Courts are generally deferential to the decisions of a school board unless the decision represents an abuse of discretion, violates the teacher’s constitutional or statutory rights, or was made in error.37 The court will generally not hear new testimony or examine additional evidence unless there is good cause to do so.

Although the dismissal process generally follows as described, individual state laws include a number of provisions that can add significant variation in the type of per-formance issues warranting dismissal, the fact finder, the length of time, and type of evidence to be considered at the hearing. Collective bargaining agreements also play a significant role in dismissal process. Dismissal rates for tenured teachers remain low in most states despite these variations.38 Figure 2 outlines the dismissal process for non-probationary teachers in five states. Appendix, at the end of this report, includes a national survey of state procedures for dismissing nonprobationary teachers.

how state law shapes teacher dismissal | www.americanprogress.org 11

Figure 2

Teacher dismissal process in California, Colorado, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.

Individual state laws and provisions can add significant variation to the length and outcome of the hearing

Prenotice procedures

Notice Prehearing Hearing Posthearing

California Teachers receive 45 days termina-tion notice for unprofessional conduct and an opportunity to correct their faults.

Teachers receive 90 days termina-tion notice for unsatisfactory performance and an opportunity to correct their faults.

The school district files written charges against the teacher. The board then votes and notifies the teacher if a majority agrees.

Teachers have 30 days to demand a hearing after being served a notice; otherwise they will be automatically dismissed.

If the teacher requests a hearing, it must commence within 60 days.

The Commission on Profes-sional Competence conducts all hearings. The employee and governing board each select one member of the commission, and one member is an administra-tive law judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings.

No testimony can be given or evidence introduced relating to matters that occurred more than four years prior to the date of the filing of the notice.

The commission must decide by majority vote to dismiss, suspend without pay, or retain the teacher.

The teacher can file appeals with the state Superior Court.

Colorado The superinten-dent must send written notice to the Board of Education recom-mending a teacher be dismissed and specifying at least one of the reasons in the dismissal law.

Written notice of the superintendent’s intent to dismiss must be sent to the teacher by certified mail within three days. The notice must include all exhibits the district intends to use against the teacher and a list of wit-nesses.

The teacher has five days after receipt of the notice to file a written objection with the superinten-dent and request a hearing.

The teacher and superintendent select an impartial hearing officer within five days of receipt of the teacher’s request for a hearing. If the two parties cannot agree, the Department of Personnel will assign an administrative law judge to act as the hearing officer.

The hearing officer has three days to set the date for a prehearing conference and the hearing itself, which must begin within 30 days of the prehearing conference.

The teacher must provide the superintendent with a copy of all exhibits and witnesses within 10 days of selecting a hearing officer.

The superintendent and the teacher supplement their lists of witnesses and exhibits within seven days of the teacher submit-ting his or her list.

Six days are allotted for the hearing to be completed unless extended by the hearing officer.

Each party has a 10-witness maximum except upon a show-ing of good cause.

The hearing officer has 20 days to submit findings of fact and a decision to dismiss or retain to the teacher and board.

The board has 20 days to review the hearing officer’s decision and make a decision to dismiss, retain, or give a one-year probation.

The teacher has 20 days to file an appeal to the Court of Appeals.

12 center for American progress | Devil in the Details

Prenotice procedures

Notice Prehearing Hearing Posthearing

Georgia The district must give the teacher 10 days notice of charges before a date is set for the hearing.

The local board conducts the hearing or designates a panel of three to five impartial people “possessing academic expertise” to conduct the hearing.

The same rules governing non-jury trials in the superior court apply to hearings. The parties can agree to have a disinterested attorney make evidentiary decisions.

The local board has five days to announce its decision.

Or... The panel has five days to file its findings and recommen-dation with the local board.

The local board has 10 days to make a decision after receiving the hearing transcript and report from the panel.

The teacher has 30 days to appeal to the State Board of Education.

And appeals from the state Board of Education are heard in the Superior Court where the local board of education is located.

Pennsylvania The president of the school board must sign the notice of the hearing and it must be attested to by the board secretary.

The teacher can choose to file a grievance under the collective bargain-ing agreement or request a hearing, but not both.

The hearing must occur within 15 days after notice is given.

Two-thirds of the Board of School Directors must vote in favor of discharge for the action to occur.

The teacher has 30 days after the local board makes a deci-sion to appeal to the superin-tendent of public instruction.

The appeal hearing must be held within 30 days after notice of the appeal.

Appeals from the superinten-dent of public instruction are heard in state court.

Washington, D.C.

The district must give notice to the teacher 10 days prior to dismissal.

The teacher has 14 days after receipt of the notice to make a written or oral response.

The teacher has 10 days after receiving the dismissal notice to file a request for a hearing.

The superintendent of schools designates a hearing officer.

The district must give the teacher access to the “adverse action” file no later than 24 hours after being given notice.

The hearing officer can exclude any evidence or testimony that is irrelevant or repetitive.

The hearing officer can also request proposed findings or posthearing briefs on any issue.

Parties can file posthearing briefs.

The hearing officer has 10 days to make written findings and recommendations.

Any party or its representative has seven days after receipt of the copy of the hearing officer’s findings and recom-mendations to submit written exceptions.

The superintendent or appeals panel has 20 days to make a final determination.

Source: Cal. Educ. Code, Title 2, Division 3, Part 25, Chap. 4 Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. Title 22, Art. 63. Georgia Code, Title 20, Chap. 2, Art. 17, Part 7. Pennsylvania Statutes, Title 24, Chap. 1, Art. XI, (C) D.C.M.R. Title 5, Chapter 14* * DC law allows for an alternative process to be determined through collective bargaining.

obstacles to an efficient and effective dismissal process | www.americanprogress.org 13

Obstacles to an efficient and effective dismissal process

Surveys of school principals have found that administrators appear to believe the dismissal process in their state or district is too cumbersome to use to terminate the employment of poor-performing teachers.39 This report identifies six main obsta-cles written into state laws that make dismissal a difficult management process.

Obstacle 1: Same procedures for different “offenses”

State law provides the same hearing procedures to all teachers, regardless of the

reason for dismissal.

Dismissal statutes outline the offenses for which a tenured teacher may be dis-missed; some are highly descriptive,40while others require only “just” or sufficient cause. A more typical statute, like Georgia’s, states that a tenured teacher can be dismissed for the following reasons:

1. Incompetency2. Insubordination3. Willful neglect of duties4. Immorality5. Inciting, encouraging, or counseling students to violate any valid state law,

municipal ordinance, or policy or rule of the local board of education6. To reduce staff due to loss of students or cancellation of programs7. Failure to secure and maintain necessary educational training8. Any other good and sufficient cause.41

Each of these reasons has a vastly different impact on students and the school environment yet a teacher can expect the same dismissal process whether he is accused of shouting at a co-worker or repeatedly failing to show success at teach-ing students Spanish.

14 center for American progress | Devil in the Details

When districts use the same process for every dismissal action, they ignore impor-tant differences that may make the hearing process inefficient. Some “offenses,” such as incompetency or neglect of duties require a strong record of documen-tation. These actions involve an attempt at remediation and an inability of the teacher to change their performance or behavior. The main issues in these cases are whether the teacher’s underperformance merits dismissal and whether the teacher has been given sufficient notice of her underperformance and time to improve.

Other cases may be incident based; the teacher is accused of a serious offense or series of offenses that necessitate dismissal. The central focus in these cases is not necessarily evaluations of instruction but rather witness testimony and documen-tation of the incident. The issue of license revocation looms over these cases, and as such, teachers are put in the position of defending both their current position and future as an educator if dismissed.

The procedures set out in most dismissal laws are best used to address the most severe violations where extensive examination of the district’s allegations is neces-sary. When considering such serious allegations as “immorality” or violating state criminal laws, it makes sense that a teacher would have the opportunity to partici-pate in discovery and call witnesses to challenge the district’s account of events. A district seeking dismissal for a more fact-intensive offense will need to devote significant time to preparing a case.

This process is ill suited for other document-based offenses, including underper-formance, for which private and public sector employees are regularly dismissed. Where qualified evaluators have documented performance issues and remediation has failed, a criminal law-like proceeding with extensive review of already established facts is unwarranted. Districts have created a management structure that empowers principals and administrators to make hiring and dismissal decisions—the dismissal process for issues like underperformance should provide a check for basic fairness but not seek to overturn a decision based in professional expertise. Furthermore, the time and work associated with such hearings—when a basis for dismissal has been clearly established through evaluation—discourages use of the process at all.

Under current laws, states may require different notice periods for dismissal for instructional performance or require specific documentation of a teacher’s incom-petence, but the dismissal hearing process essentially remains the same. At least one state, New York, differentiates the fact finder selection process for removing a teacher for instructional performance from that of other violations.42 Under New

obstacles to an efficient and effective dismissal process | www.americanprogress.org 15

York law, a teacher removed for “pedagogical incompetence,” may choose to have a single hearing officer or a three-member panel (including a member selected by the teacher).43 The New York law acknowledges that a teacher dismissed for instructional ineffectiveness will ostensibly want to select another teacher to be on the hearing panel. The law does not, however, articulate any other differences in the process.

Obstacle 2: Incompetency is undefined

Ineffective teachers are often dismissed for being “incompetent” but state law

rarely provides a workable definition of poor instructional performance.

If a teacher commits a crime or exhibits some other behavior that endangers stu-dents, administrators know that they have a basis to dismiss the teacher. The basis for dismissing a teacher for chronic instructional ineffectiveness may be much harder to determine and few state laws clarify the issue.

Chronically ineffective performance in the classroom is most often characterized as “incompetence,” a vague term state courts have attempted to interpret.44 A school district may believe that they have evidence of a teacher’s ineffectiveness in the classroom but a law’s ambiguity can invite debate over whether dismissal is appro-priate.45 To prove its case, a district may need to present years of documentation of the teacher’s poor performance to show that it extends beyond a few observa-tions.46 Districts are therefore hesitant to bring charges of incompetence for which they may not have sufficient documentation and instead pursue cases of more egregious misconduct. If districts rarely pursue dismissal for chronically ineffec-tive teachers, the standard for dismissal becomes skewed toward more outrageous behavior instead of considering the harm done by a teacher who cannot teach.

States have the tools to provide a functional definition to guide dismissal for inef-fectiveness. Formal evaluations, as explained previously, provide direct documen-tation of a teacher’s performance. A teacher in Pennsylvania, for example, may be dismissed for “unsatisfactory teaching performance” if he receives two consecu-tive negative ratings on an evaluation.47 Student achievement data, whether from standardized exams or other measures is increasingly being included in evalua-tions of teacher performance, could also be referenced in the definition. Many states require remediation as a prerequisite to pursuing dismissal for instructional performance but do not specifically include a teacher’s failure to show improve-ment after remediation as part of the definition of incompetence.

16 center for American progress | Devil in the Details

Obstacle 3: No link between evaluation and dismissal

State dismissal laws may not explicitly link the evaluation process to the dis-

missal process, devaluing the role of evaluations in termination decisions.

Almost every state offers some guidance on the teacher evaluation process.48 These laws cover a wide range of topics—from specifying the number of times a tenured teacher may be evaluated to explaining the remediation process for teach-ers who earn unsatisfactory evaluations. One element of the evaluation process is conspicuously missing from many state laws—dismissal as the eventual result of multiple negative evaluations. Only 11 states advise that teachers with a record of unsatisfactory evaluations are eligible for dismissal, according to the National Council for Teaching Quality.49

Formal evaluations provide important information about a teacher’s performance yet their place in the dismissal process is unclear. The absence of a formal link between evaluation and dismissal sends the message that dismissal is not a poten-tial consequence of receiving multiple negative evaluations. It’s no wonder that few administrators give negative evaluations—if an evaluation does not form the basis of a dismissal charge, a principal may see no benefit to giving a negative rat-ing. Struggling teachers are also disadvantaged when evaluations are not seriously contemplated. Teachers facing dismissal due to poor performance in most states are entitled to remediation. Without a serious evaluation process, struggling teach-ers cannot be identified and remediated toward success.

Teachers must be evaluated, at least annually, for school systems to have an accu-rate view of their performance. Only 15 states currently require annual evaluations for nonprobationary teachers.50 Teachers may not have fair notice of their perfor-mance issues when evaluations are conducted infrequently, further complicating the dismissal process.

When states and districts have rigorous evaluation systems in place that are linked to dismissal, it makes sense that evaluations would play a prominent role in a dis-missal hearing. A state law recommending dismissal after multiple negative evalu-ations creates a presumption that the evaluation procedure has identified poor performers. Without this link, a fact finder may not give appropriate deference to the evaluation process and may feel free to consider other less relevant evidence in determining whether a teacher should be dismissed.

obstacles to an efficient and effective dismissal process | www.americanprogress.org 17

Obstacle 4: The requirements for remediation are vague

Districts must show that dismissed teachers were given an opportunity to reme-

diate, but the requirements for remediation are unclear in state law.

School districts are generally required, either by statute, collective bargaining agreements, or case law, to show that a dismissed teacher was offered an oppor-tunity to improve. The amount of time provided to teachers to improve is often cited as a contributing factor to the lengthiness of the dismissal process.51 But the quality of the remediation process is also an obstacle to an efficient process. While the amount of time provided to teachers is often addressed in state law, the steps a district must take to show an adequate effort of remediation are not clear. California, for example, instructs districts that they cannot dismiss a teacher for “unsatisfactory performance,” unless the district gives a teacher “an opportunity to correct his or her faults and overcome grounds for the charge.”52 What actions constitute sufficient opportunity to remediate can easily become a contentious topic in the hearing and many courts have been asked to stop a termination action based on problems in the remediation process.53

This lack of clarity can undoubtedly lead to objections that the teacher was not provided with sufficient tools and direction to improve. Administrators using an ad hoc method of remediation may also be vulnerable to suggestions that different teachers are treated differently during the remediation process. With no direction from state law, district officials may be unclear on how much time and money should be spent on remediating one teacher.

Alaska provides an example of a state that requires districts to follow a state-mandated remediation plan for teachers who have received an unsatisfactory evaluation. Principals are required to articulate specific performance goals for the teacher and offer specific ways for the teacher to improve.54 The district is also required to formally evaluate the teacher at least twice during the improvement period.55 The district can move to dismiss a teacher who does not show improve-ment, according to the remediation plan, at the end of the designated period.56

18 center for American progress | Devil in the Details

Obstacle 5: Absence of timelines or timelines that don’t work

State laws often lack timelines that could make the process more efficient.

State laws may actually create lengthy, expensive hearings by not imposing and enforcing strict timelines on crucial parts of the dismissal process. More than half of state laws describe a dismissal process that will last more than 40 days, not tak-ing into account the delays that occur once a case begins.57 A study of New York dismissal hearings found that the average proceeding lasted 520 days in 2005.58

State law typically provides guidelines for the time a district must give to a teacher to respond to a notice of dismissal and the time between the request for a hearing and when the hearing commences. This period can range from five days to more than one month. The selection of the hearing officer or arbitrator, often a process of back and forth between the teacher and the district, can add more delays to the process.59 Parties can also agree to extend statutory deadlines for any part of the process.

Few states attempt to actually restrict the time a hearing can take once it com-mences. Strict guidelines on the type of evidence and number of witnesses each party presents could limit the length of hearings, but few state laws provide any restrictions in this area. The liberal allowance of time combined with lax eviden-tiary rules almost guarantees lengthy hearings. Several states do require hearing officers to report their findings within a certain period of time but with no enforce-ment mechanism built into the law, even this requirement is rendered meaningless.

Teachers placed on administrative leave while awaiting the completion of their hearing can generally expect to be paid unless they have committed or plead guilty to an offense for which pay is prohibited under state law.60 There is a strong argu-ment in defense of this practice as teachers should not be deprived of their salary while fighting a charge that may prove to be erroneous. This practice certainly would make more sense if teachers were provided with an expedient dismissal process. Under the current framework, however, paying a teacher’s salary while the dismissal takes months, or worse, years, discourages teachers from demanding a more efficient process.

obstacles to an efficient and effective dismissal process | www.americanprogress.org 19

Obstacle 6: State law, local process

Factors on the local level can further complicate the dismissal process.

State laws offer the guiding principles by which dismissal hearings are conducted, but the teacher dismissal process is subject to many factors on the local level that may add to its inefficiency.

Most state laws specifically allow for collective bargaining agreements with local unions that add layers of process beyond those articulated in the state dismissal law.61 The Los Angeles Teachers’ Union agreement describes the specific steps a principal must take to evaluate and remediate a teacher.62 New York City’s contract with the teacher’s union requires the use of a panel of arbitrators to hear dismissal cases who each only hear cases five days a month.63 Collective bargaining agree-ments can also restrict the type of documents a district can keep and use in a dismissal hearing.64

Fact finders exercise a tremendous amount of power in the hearing process yet the process hardly ensures that the fact finder will be qualified to second-guess decisions of school administrators. State law instructs fact finders to determine if a school district has proven their case, not if the teacher’s behavior negatively impacts the school or student body to the extent that their employment must be terminated. Under this framework, fact finders may concentrate more on adher-ence to steps in the process instead of overwhelming evidence of the teacher’s misconduct or ineffectiveness.

State law may or may not discuss procedures within the hearing but even then, fact finders are empowered to make important decisions that affect everything from the length of the hearing to the type of evidence that is heard. There may be wide variation in the approach different fact finders take to conducting hearings because hearings generally are not run according to formal rules of evidence.

20 center for American progress | Devil in the Details

Toward reform

The harm that occurs when a poor-performing teacher remains in the classroom cannot be overstated. Therefore, the core of any reform strategy must be the well-being of those students who may be negatively affected by the teacher’s continued employment in a school or district. Changes can be made to state laws that respect the due process rights of teachers while allowing for the fair and efficient dismissal of teachers who do not belong in the classroom.

Recommendation 1: Create a system of differentiated due process procedures that correspond to particular performance issues

There are many reasons why a teacher may be dismissed from her position. Ongoing instructional issues may be addressed through a process of evaluation and remediation. Professional conduct issues like tardiness and other forms of misconduct should be handled through a “progressive discipline” process.65 Incidents of extreme malfeasance or criminal behavior may warrant immediate dismissal with no remediation process. The “one size fits all” approach to dismissal does not acknowledge the distinct nature of teacher performance issues nor does it recognize the extensive administrative processes that occur before a hearing.

State law should articulate distinct processes for teachers being dismissed for: 1) chronic ineffectiveness; 2) unprofessional conduct; and 3) committing criminal acts.

Chronic ineffectiveness: The dismissal process should be used as a last check to ensure teachers were provided with notice of their poor performance and given sufficient opportunity to improve. Teachers should use the hearing opportunity to argue issues regarding the evaluation process and not the substance of their evalua-tions.66 Unfortunately, bias and personal conflicts can interfere with an administra-tor offering a fair evaluation. Therefore, the use of multiple evaluators, including at least one impartial evaluator working outside the school, provides a consistent

toward reform | www.americanprogress.org 21

record of performance evaluation. State legislators could consider shifting the bur-den in cases of chronic ineffectiveness to the teacher to show that he or she should not be dismissed once districts can show that they are consistently using reliable evaluation systems.

Unprofessional conduct: Many performance issues will fall under the umbrella of unprofessional conduct and state legislators should contemplate levels of conduct and corresponding processes. Such a system should distinguish those offenses that merit a more traditional, trial-like proceeding and those that do not. Consistent tardiness and absences, for example, for which notice of the issue and remediation are easily documented, should be facilitated through an expedited hearing for the teacher to object to any process complaints. Other offenses that involve accusa-tions of serious improper behavior such as sexual harassment, causing bodily injury to students or staff, or financial misconduct may require a longer hearing for the teacher to present a full defense.

Criminal offenses: If a teacher has already plead guilty or been convicted of crime that triggers license revocation, it makes no sense to require a school district to expend the money and time to try the same case. A district should only be required to introduce a certificate of conviction or record of a guilty plea to meet its burden. State legislators should consider including a provision that addresses the issue of teachers awaiting trial for criminal offenses by putting the teacher on unpaid administrative leave, with the potential of back pay if the teacher is found not guilty.

Recommendation 2: Establish a state-administered system for selecting hearing officers

Creating a state-administered system for selecting hearing officers could greatly reduce the time associated with selecting hearing officers and arbitrators, ensure that fact finders have a background in educational matters, lessen the impact of personal or financial conflicts of school board members or arbitrators on the pro-cess, and lead to greater uniformity in dismissal procedures and outcomes.

Selection: The selection process can take months in states where the teacher and district must mutually select a hearing officer or arbitrator. Hearings must be scheduled according to the hearing officer or arbitrator’s availability adding further delay. Under a state-administered system, the state education agency could employ a staff of hearing officers who conduct hearings on full-time basis across

22 center for American progress | Devil in the Details

the state. Hearing officers can be chosen through a random selection process reducing the time spent on mutual selection processes.

Qualifications: Hearing officers are typically lawyers or licensed arbitrators with a background in employment law but not necessarily instructional practice. It is important that hearing officers not only be able to analyze the facts of dismissal case but also understand the impact of the teacher’s behavior and performance on a school and its students. Such qualifications are particularly important when consid-ering cases of chronic ineffectiveness where hearing officers may review classroom evaluations and student performance data. The state could require that hearing officers have some prior educational experience or offer panel hearings that include members with an education background as well as an administrative law judge.

Impartiality: Political and personal connections to a dismissal case may influ-ence elected school board members. Arbitrators may have a financial incentive to endure lengthy hearings or avoid displeasing either party. State-employed hearing officers will have no incentive to decide for either party or to tolerate unnecessar-ily lengthy dismissal hearings.

Uniformity in hearing decisions: Guidelines and procedures for conducting dismissal hearings should be uniformly applied. A panel of hearing officers, all working from the same guidelines, will improve the consistency of evidentiary decisions. State education agencies or boards of education can promulgate guide-lines with input from state teachers’ unions.

Enforcement of statutory timelines: State legislators should consider implement-ing statutory guidelines for all aspects of the dismissal process. Hearings should be held within a prescribed amount of time, with extensions granted only for extraor-dinary cause.67 Hearing officers should be expected to publish their decisions in a timely fashion or face removal from the officer pool. State guidelines should address the penalties incurred when parties do not meet indicated deadlines.

Recommendation 3: Use mediation as an alternative to traditional dismissal hearings

Many low-performing teachers are aware of their performance issues but may feel that they have no other option than to fight dismissal. Since state law allows for compensation during the dismissal process, teachers also are essentially encour-aged to continue through the process. Districts and teachers can avoid unneces-

toward reform | www.americanprogress.org 23

sary dismissal hearings and appeals by thinking creatively about alternatives to traditional, high-stakes dismissal hearings.

Implementing a mandatory nonbinding mediation session prior to the dismissal hearing, where both the district and teacher can present their perception of the case may actually encourage many teachers not to pursue a traditional dismissal hearing. The mediation may provide an opportunity for the teacher to better understand the reasoning behind dismissal and allow the district to see if the case can be resolved outside of an actual dismissal hearing. The parties can also deter-mine if alternatives to dismissal are appropriate such as an alternative noninstruc-tional placement for teachers with applicable skills in other areas, a cash “buyout,” or another mutually agreeable arrangement.

Teachers will take full advantage of their right to a hearing and pursuing multiple appeals when faced with the possibility of losing a current position and any possibil-ity for attaining another position in the field. Limiting license revocation to a small subset of teachers who commit crimes or endanger students’ lives, as suggested by The New Teacher Project, will discourage teachers from aggressively fighting a dis-missal charge for lesser “offenses” that allow them to keep their license.68

Recommendation 4: Define ineffective classroom performance in state law

State laws should provide a definition of ineffective classroom performance that references: 1) ineffective instructional practice as observed through formal and informal evaluations, 2) a failure to promote student achievement (through multiple measures), and 3) a lack of improvement after the remediation period. Defining ineffective classroom performance will provide greater guidance to all participants in the dismissal process and reduce the amount of time spent deliber-ating whether a teacher’s performance meets the law’s definition.

Evaluations are the key factor in assessing teacher effectiveness and state laws should require at least annual evaluations for every teacher. State evaluation laws should also explicitly link to dismissal as a potential result of consecutive negative evaluations.

Policymakers should also articulate a specific process for remediation in state law and regulations and allow evaluations to take place on a shorter schedule for those teachers in the remediation phase. For example, under Delaware’s revised evalua-tion system, an improvement plan for a teacher must contain:

24 center for American progress | Devil in the Details

• Identification of the specific deficiencies and recommended area(s) for growth•Measurable goals for improving the deficiencies to satisfactory levels• Specific professional development or activities to accomplish the goals• Specific resources necessary to implement the plan, including but not limited to,

opportunities for the teacher to work with curriculum specialist(s), subject area specialist(s), instructional specialist(s), or others with relevant expertise

•Procedures and evidence that must be collected to determine that the goals of the plan were met

•Timeline for the plan, including intermediate check points to determine progress

•Procedures for determining satisfactory improvement•Multiple observations and opportunity for feedback provided by a trained

evaluator, a mentor, a lead teacher, or an instructional coach69

Implementing specific requirements for remediation plans will eliminate ambigu-ity within hearing process regarding the level of assistance offered to poor-per-forming teachers.

Recommendation 5: States and districts should work with unions to facilitate fair and efficient dismissal procedures

Unions should play an active role in the dismissal process—and not only in a defensive role in hearings. Unions can contribute in prehearing discussions with teachers who are experiencing performance issues in the classroom and be actively involved in efforts to help teachers remediate. A formal remediation process, jointly offered by unions and written into collective bargaining agreements, can help districts avoid prolonged disputes over the quality of the assistance offered to a struggling teacher.

Several districts have implemented Peer Assistance and Review programs that employ expert teachers (and union members) to identify, evaluate, and assist teachers with performance issues. After a teacher is identified for PAR participa-tion, another highly effective teacher jointly selected by the PAR panel composed of union- and district-selected members closely monitors and mentors the teacher through a remediation period.70 The PAR panel makes retention recommenda-tions for teachers who participate in PAR and may recommend that a district dismiss a teacher who does not show improvement. The PAR process provides

toward reform | www.americanprogress.org 25

ongoing communication with the teacher about their performance virtually guar-anteeing that due process has been afforded to the teacher. Unions rarely contest a teachers’ dismissal under such circumstances.71

State law could bolster the strength of the PAR process by requiring teachers who have been recommended for dismissal through the process to carry the burden in a dismissal hearing. Although PAR has been implemented in several districts, the process depends heavily on principal referrals. Reluctance on the part of prin-cipals to refer teachers to PAR can undermine the program’s success, therefore districts should consider allowing others with evaluation duties to make referrals to the program or create a pipeline to the program for teachers who receive “inef-fective” ratings.

States’ legislators should seek to include union members in their efforts as they begin the process of revising teacher tenure laws. Colorado established a state-wide task force in 1997 to assist legislative members in studying the state’s teacher evaluation and dismissal process.72 The task force, which included representatives from the teachers’ union, recommended a number of changes to state law includ-ing the shortening of the dismissal hearing timelines and procedures and clarify-ing the role of hearing officers.73

26 center for American progress | Devil in the Details

Conclusion

There is a movement across federal, state, and local policy to create policies that ensure that every student is taught by an effective teacher. A necessary corollary to this movement is the creation of policies that facilitate the expedient identification and dismissal of chronically ineffective teachers. Current state law presents a num-ber of obstacles that hinder the effectiveness of the dismissal process as this paper has explained. These obstacles can be overcome, through significant changes to state law, and dismissal systems can be created that focus on the well-being of schools and students while respecting teachers’ due process rights.

27

App

endi

x |

ww

w.a

mer

ican

prog

ress

.org

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Ala

bam

aIn

com

pete

ncy,

insu

bord

inat

ion,

ne

glec

t of d

uty,

imm

oral

ity, f

ailu

re

to p

erfo

rm d

utie

s in

a sa

tisfa

ctor

y m

anne

r, ju

stifi

able

dec

reas

e in

the

num

ber o

f tea

chin

g po

sitio

ns, o

r ot

her g

ood

and

just

cau

se. A

la. C

ode

§ 16

-24-

8.

Non

eN

one

Non

eTh

e sc

hool

boa

rd

and

teac

her m

utua

lly

sele

ct a

hea

ring

office

r or

a h

earin

g offi

cer i

s se

lect

ed fr

om a

med

iato

r lis

t pro

vide

d by

Fed

eral

M

edia

tion

and

Conc

ili-

atio

n Se

rvic

es’ O

ffice

of

Arbi

trat

ion

Serv

ices

. Ala

. Co

de §

16-

24-2

0.

The

hear

ing

office

r mus

t re

nder

a w

ritte

n de

cisi

on

with

find

ings

of f

act a

nd

conc

lusi

ons o

f law

with

in

30 d

ays a

fter

the

hear

ing.

Al

a. C

ode

§ 16

-24-

10.

The

Alab

ama

Cour

t of

Civi

l App

eals

hea

rs a

ll ap

peal

s of h

earin

g offi

cer

deci

sion

s. “T

he d

ecis

ion

of th

e he

arin

g offi

cer

shal

l be

affirm

ed o

n ap

peal

unl

ess t

he C

ourt

of

Civ

il Ap

peal

s find

s the

de

cisi

on a

rbitr

ary

and

capr

icio

us.” A

la. C

ode

§ 16

-24-

10.

Ala

ska

Inco

mpe

tenc

y, im

mor

ality

, or

subs

tant

ial n

onco

mpl

ianc

e w

ith th

e sc

hool

law

s of t

he st

ate,

the

regu

la-

tions

or b

ylaw

s of t

he d

epar

tmen

t, th

e by

law

s of t

he d

istr

ict,

or th

e w

ritte

n ru

les o

f the

supe

rinte

nden

t. Al

aska

Sta

t. §

14.2

0.17

0.

A te

ache

r may

be

nonr

etai

ned

if th

e te

ache

r doe

s not

mee

t per

form

ance

st

anda

rds a

fter

rem

edia

tion,

imm

o-ra

lity,

or s

ubst

antia

l non

com

pli-

ance

with

the

scho

ol la

ws o

f the

st

ate,

the

regu

latio

ns, o

r byl

aws

of th

e de

part

men

t, th

e by

law

s of

the

dist

rict,

or th

e w

ritte

n ru

les o

f th

e su

perin

tend

ent.

Alas

ka S

tat.

§ 14

.20.

175.

Inco

mpe

tenc

y is

defi

ned

as “t

he in

abili

ty o

r the

un

inte

ntio

nal o

r int

en-

tiona

l fai

lure

to p

erfo

rm

the

teac

her’s

cus

tom

ary

teac

hing

dut

ies i

n a

sat-

isfa

ctor

y m

anne

r.” A

lask

a St

at. §

14.

20.1

70 (a

)(1).

To n

onre

tain

a te

ache

r, th

e sc

hool

dis

tric

t mus

t de

mon

stra

te it

has

fully

co

mpl

ied

with

stat

e ev

alua

tion

requ

irem

ents

, in

clud

ing

the

com

plet

ion

of a

pla

n fo

r im

prov

e-m

ent,

docu

men

tatio

n th

at th

e te

ache

r has

faile

d to

mee

t the

per

form

ance

ob

ject

ives

set o

ut in

the

plan

, and

an

eval

uatio

n th

at e

stab

lishe

s tha

t the

te

ache

r doe

s not

mee

t th

e di

stric

t per

form

ance

st

anda

rds.

Alas

ka S

tat.

§14.

20.1

75.

A te

nure

d te

ache

r who

do

es n

ot m

eet d

istr

ict

perf

orm

ance

stan

dard

s m

ust b

e pr

ovid

ed w

ith a

“p

lan

of im

prov

emen

t,”

whi

ch h

e or

she

mus

t ex

ecut

e in

90

to 1

80

days

. The

dis

tric

t mus

t ob

serv

e th

e te

ache

r at

leas

t tw

ice

durin

g th

e co

urse

of t

he p

lan.

The

di

stric

t may

non

reta

in

the

teac

her i

f he

or sh

e ag

ain

does

not

mee

t th

e di

stric

t per

form

ance

st

anda

rds a

t the

con

clu-

sion

of t

he p

lan.

Ala

ska

stat

§ 1

4.20

.149

(e).

The

teac

her m

ay se

lect

a

hear

ing

befo

re th

e sc

hool

boa

rd o

r inv

oke

a gr

ieva

nce

proc

edur

e an

d su

bmit

the

mat

ter

to a

rbitr

atio

n (if

the

boar

d su

stai

ns d

ism

issa

l or

non

rete

ntio

n af

ter

an in

form

al h

earin

g).

Alas

ka st

at §

14.2

0.18

0 (d

) and

(e).

Non

eIf

the

teac

her c

hoos

es

a he

arin

g be

fore

the

scho

ol b

oard

, the

teac

her

may

app

eal t

he d

ecis

ion

to th

e su

perio

r cou

rt fo

r ju

dici

al re

view

bas

ed

on th

e ad

min

istr

ativ

e re

cord

. Ala

ska

stat

§

14.2

0.18

0 (d

).

28

cent

er fo

r Am

eric

an p

rogr

ess

| D

evil

in t

he D

etai

ls

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Ariz

ona

Imm

oral

or u

npro

fess

iona

l con

duct

, co

nduc

t in

viol

atio

n of

the

rule

s or

polic

ies o

f the

gov

erni

ng b

oard

, go

od a

nd ju

st c

ause

, or

inad

equa

cy

of c

lass

room

per

form

ance

. Ariz

. Rev

. St

at. §

15-

539.

Non

e, b

ut th

e go

vern

ing

boar

d of

eac

h di

stric

t is

char

ged

with

dev

elop

-in

g “a

defi

nitio

n of

in

adeq

uacy

of c

lass

room

pe

rfor

man

ce” i

n co

n-su

ltatio

n w

ith it

s cer

tifi-

cate

d te

ache

rs. A

riz. R

ev.

Stat

. § 1

5-53

9 (d

).

Non

e, b

ut th

e go

vern

-in

g bo

ard

mus

t giv

e th

e te

ache

r not

ice

of it

s in

tent

ion

if th

e di

smis

sal

is b

ased

on

inad

equa

cy o

f cl

assr

oom

per

form

ance

. Th

e no

tice

mus

t be

base

d on

a v

alid

eva

luat

ion

and

mus

t giv

e th

e te

ache

r at

leas

t 60

days

to sh

ow

impr

ovem

ent.

Ariz

. Rev

. St

at. §

15-

539

(c).

Non

eTh

e go

vern

ing

boar

d or

th

e bo

ard

desi

gnat

es a

he

arin

g offi

cer,

whi

ch

mus

t be

mut

ually

agr

eed

upon

by

the

part

ies.

Ariz

. Re

v. S

tat.

§ 15

-541

(a).

No

test

imon

y or

evi

-de

nce

is p

erm

itted

that

re

late

s to

adeq

uacy

of

clas

sroo

m p

erfo

rman

ce

from

mor

e th

an fo

ur

year

s prio

r to

notic

e of

di

smis

sal.

The

four

-yea

r tim

e lim

it do

es n

ot a

pply

to

the

intr

oduc

tion

of

evid

ence

in a

ny a

rea

exce

pt a

dequ

acy

of

clas

sroo

m p

erfo

rman

ce.

Ariz

. Rev

. Sta

t. §

15-5

42

(b).

The

cour

t onl

y re

vers

es

the

actio

n if

it fin

ds th

e de

cisi

on w

as a

rbitr

ary,

ca

pric

ious

or o

ther

wis

e co

ntra

ry to

law

. Ariz

. Rev

. St

at. §

15-

543;

§ 4

1-78

5 (c

).

Ark

ansa

sIn

com

pete

nt p

erfo

rman

ce, c

ondu

ct

that

mat

eria

lly in

terf

eres

with

the

cont

inue

d pe

rfor

man

ce o

f the

te

ache

r’s d

utie

s, re

peat

ed o

r mat

e-ria

l neg

lect

of d

uty,

or o

ther

just

an

d re

ason

able

cau

se. A

rk. C

ode

§ 6-

17-1

507

(a).

Non

eN

one

Non

e, b

ut a

n ad

min

is-

trat

or “s

hall”

doc

umen

t an

d sh

are

the

prob

lem

s w

ith th

e te

ache

r and

do

cum

ent e

ffort

s to

corr

ect p

erfo

rman

ce if

he

or s

he b

elie

ves t

hat

a te

ache

r’s p

erfo

rman

ce

may

lead

to n

onre

new

al

or te

rmin

atio

n. A

rk. C

ode

§ 6-

17-1

504(

b).

The

boar

d of

dire

ctor

s he

ars t

he c

ase.

Ark

. Cod

e §

6-17

-150

9.

Non

eAp

peal

s go

to th

e ci

rcui

t co

urt o

f the

cou

nty

in

whi

ch th

e sc

hool

dis

tric

t is

loca

ted;

add

ition

al

test

imon

y an

d ev

iden

ce

are

perm

itted

to d

em-

onst

rate

the

law

fuln

ess

or u

nlaw

fuln

ess o

f di

smis

sal.

Ark.

Cod

e §

6-17

-151

0 (d

).

29

App

endi

x |

ww

w.a

mer

ican

prog

ress

.org

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Calif

orni

aIm

mor

al o

r unp

rofe

ssio

nal c

ondu

ct;

com

mis

sion

, aid

ing,

or a

dvoc

atin

g th

e co

mm

issi

on o

f act

s of c

rimin

al

synd

ical

ism

; dis

hone

sty;

uns

atis

fac-

tory

per

form

ance

; evi

dent

unfi

tnes

s fo

r ser

vice

; a p

hysi

cal o

r men

tal

cond

ition

unfi

ttin

g hi

m o

r her

to

inst

ruct

or a

ssoc

iate

with

chi

ldre

n;

pers

iste

nt v

iola

tion

of o

r ref

usal

to

obe

y th

e st

ate

scho

ol la

ws o

r re

ason

able

regu

latio

ns; c

onvi

ctio

n of

a fe

lony

or o

f any

crim

e in

volv

-in

g m

oral

turp

itude

; vio

latio

n of

se

ctio

n 51

530

or c

ondu

ct sp

ecifi

ed

in S

ectio

n 10

28 o

f the

Gov

ernm

ent

Code

; kno

win

g m

embe

rshi

p in

the

Com

mun

ist P

arty

; or a

lcoh

olis

m o

r ot

her d

rug

abus

e th

at m

akes

the

empl

oyee

unfi

t to

inst

ruct

or a

ssoc

i-at

e w

ith c

hild

ren.

Cal.E

duc.

Code

§ 4

4932

.

Non

eN

one,

but

the

gove

rn-

ing

boar

d ca

nnot

act

on

char

ges o

f “un

satis

fact

ory

perf

orm

ance

” unl

ess i

t gi

ves t

he te

ache

r not

ice

of th

e un

satis

fact

ory

per-

form

ance

and

tim

e to

cor

-re

ct h

is o

r her

faul

ts a

nd

over

com

e gr

ound

s for

the

char

ge. T

he n

otic

e m

ust

incl

ude

an e

valu

atio

n. C

al.

Educ

.Cod

e §

4493

8.

Non

eA

Com

mis

sion

on

Prof

essi

onal

Com

pete

nce

cond

ucts

the

hear

ing,

th

e em

ploy

ee se

lect

s on

e m

embe

r of t

he

com

mis

sion

, the

gov

ern-

ing

boar

d se

lect

s one

m

embe

r, an

d th

e th

ird

is a

n ad

min

istr

ativ

e la

w

judg

e of

the

Offi

ce o

f Ad

min

istr

ativ

e H

earin

gs.

Cal.

Educ

. Cod

e §

4494

4 (b

)(1).

Test

imon

ies a

nd e

vi-

denc

e re

late

d to

mat

ters

th

at o

ccur

red

mor

e th

an

four

yea

rs p

rior t

o th

e da

te o

f not

ice

are

not

perm

itted

. Cal

. Edu

c.

Code

§ 4

4944

.

“A c

ourt

of c

ompe

tent

ju

risdi

ctio

n” h

ears

the

appe

al; t

he c

ourt

“sha

ll”

exer

cise

“ind

epen

dent

ju

dgm

ent o

n th

e ev

i-de

nce.”

Cal

. Edu

c. C

ode

§ 44

945.

Colo

rado

Phys

ical

or m

enta

l dis

abili

ty,

inco

mpe

tenc

y, n

egle

ct o

f dut

y,

imm

oral

ity, u

nsat

isfa

ctor

y pe

rfor

-m

ance

, ins

ubor

dina

tion,

con

vict

ion

of a

felo

ny o

r acc

epta

nce

of a

gui

lty

plea

, a p

lea

of n

olo

cont

ende

re, o

r a

defe

rred

sent

ence

for a

felo

ny, o

r ot

her g

ood

and

just

cau

se. C

olo.

Re

v. S

tat.

§ 22

-63-

301.

Non

eN

one,

but

whe

n un

satis

-fa

ctor

y pe

rfor

man

ce is

a

grou

nd fo

r dis

mis

sal,

the

dist

rict m

ust e

stab

lish

that

the

teac

her w

as

eval

uate

d pu

rsua

nt to

the

writ

ten

eval

uatio

n sy

stem

re

quire

d by

law

. Col

o. R

ev.

Stat

. § 2

2-63

-302

(8)

If th

e te

ache

r is s

till n

ot

perf

orm

ing

satis

fact

orily

af

ter t

wo

eval

uatio

ns

and

an u

nsuc

cess

-fu

l rem

edia

tion

plan

, th

e ev

alua

tor m

ust

eith

er m

ake

addi

tiona

l re

com

men

datio

ns fo

r im

prov

emen

t or m

ay

reco

mm

end

dism

issa

l.

Col

o. R

ev. S

tat.

§ 22

-9-

106

(4.5

).

An im

part

ial h

earin

g offi

cer i

s joi

ntly

sele

cted

by

the

teac

her a

nd c

hief

ad

min

istr

ativ

e offi

cer.

If th

ey fa

il to

agr

ee, t

he

depa

rtm

ent o

f per

sonn

el

assi

gns a

n ad

min

istr

ativ

e la

w ju

dge.

Colo

. Rev

. Sta

t. §

22-6

3-30

2 (4

)(a).

Hea

rings

are

lim

ited

to

six

wor

king

day

s unl

ess

exte

nded

by

the

hear

-in

g offi

cer.

Each

par

ty

has o

nly

thre

e da

ys to

pr

esen

t its

cas

e. N

eith

er

part

y m

ay p

rese

nt m

ore

than

10

witn

esse

s at t

he

hear

ing

unle

ss th

ere

is

good

cau

se.

Colo

. Rev

. Sta

t. §

22-6

3-30

2 (7

)(e).

The

cour

t of a

ppea

ls

revi

ews t

he re

cord

to

dete

rmin

e w

heth

er

the

boar

d’s a

ctio

n w

as

“arb

itrar

y or

cap

ricio

us”

or le

gally

impe

rmis

sibl

e.

Colo

. Rev

. Sta

t. §

22-6

3-30

2(10

)(c).

30

cent

er fo

r Am

eric

an p

rogr

ess

| D

evil

in t

he D

etai

ls

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Conn

ecti

-cu

tIn

effici

ency

or i

ncom

pete

nce,

in

subo

rdin

atio

n, m

oral

mis

cond

uct,

disa

bilit

y as

show

n by

com

pete

nt

med

ical

evi

denc

e, e

limin

atio

n of

the

teac

her’s

pos

ition

, or o

ther

due

and

su

ffici

ent c

ause

. Con

n. G

en. S

tat.

§ 10

-151

(d).

Non

eTh

e de

term

inat

ion

of

inco

mpe

tenc

e is

bas

ed o

n ev

alua

tion

of th

e te

ache

r us

ing

teac

her e

valu

atio

n gu

idel

ines

est

ablis

hed

in

stat

e la

w.

Conn

. Gen

. Sta

t. §

10-1

51(d

).

Non

eTh

e he

arin

g m

ay b

e be

fore

the

boar

d of

ed

ucat

ion

or a

subc

om-

mitt

ee o

f the

boa

rd,

an im

part

ial h

earin

g pa

nel,

or th

e te

ache

r an

d su

perin

tend

ent c

an

mut

ually

agr

ee o

n a

sing

le im

part

ial h

earin

g offi

cer.

Conn

. Gen

. Sta

t. §

10-1

51(d

).

If th

e he

arin

g is

hel

d be

fore

an

impa

rtia

l hea

r-in

g pa

nel,

subc

omm

ittee

of

the

boar

d, o

r hea

ring

office

r, fin

ding

s mus

t be

mad

e w

ithin

75

days

of

the

rece

ipt f

or re

ques

t of

hear

ing.

Conn

. Gen

. Sta

t. §

10-1

51(d

).

The

supe

rior c

ourt

affi

rms

the

agen

cy’s

deci

sion

unle

ss th

e co

urt fi

nds

the

deci

sion

was

mad

e in

vi

olat

ion

of c

onst

itutio

nal

or st

atut

ory

prov

ision

s or,

in e

xces

s of t

he a

genc

y’s

stat

utor

y au

thor

ity, m

ade

upon

unl

awfu

l pro

cedu

re,

affec

ted

by o

ther

err

or

of la

w, c

lear

ly e

rron

e-ou

s in

view

of e

vide

nce

on th

e w

hole

reco

rd, o

r ar

bitr

ary

or c

apric

ious

or

char

acte

rized

by

abus

e of

disc

retio

n or

cle

arly

un

war

rant

ed e

xerc

ise o

f di

scre

tion.

Con

n. G

en.

Stat

. § 1

0-15

1(e)

; § 4

- 18

3 (j)

.

Del

awar

eIm

mor

ality

, mis

cond

uct i

n offi

ce,

inco

mpe

tenc

y, d

islo

yalty

, neg

lect

of

dut

y, a

redu

ctio

n in

the

num

ber

of te

ache

rs re

quire

d as

a re

sult

of

decr

ease

d en

rollm

ent o

r a d

ecre

ase

in e

duca

tion

serv

ices

, or w

illfu

l and

pe

rsis

tent

insu

bord

inat

ion.

Del

. Co

de A

nn. T

it. 1

4 §

1411

, § 1

420.

Non

e, b

ut e

ach

dist

rict

may

defi

ne “a

pat

tern

” of

ineff

ectiv

e te

achi

ng in

its

eval

uatio

n sy

stem

. The

D

elaw

are

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Code

defi

nes a

“pat

tern

” as

two

cons

ecut

ive

ineff

ectiv

e ra

tings

. 14

DE

Adm

in. C

ode

106A

.

Non

eA

scho

ol d

istr

ict “

may

” m

ove

to te

rmin

ate

a te

ache

r for

inco

mpe

-te

ncy

whe

n it

esta

blis

hes

a pa

tter

n of

ineff

ectiv

e te

achi

ng. D

el. C

ode

Ann.

Ti

t. 14

§ §

127

3.

Boar

d or

hea

ring

office

r co

nduc

ts th

e he

arin

g.

Del

. Cod

e An

n. T

it. 1

4 §

1413

(b).

Test

imon

y an

d ev

iden

ce

mus

t be

confi

ned

to th

e re

ason

s sta

ted

in th

e w

ritte

n no

tice

of in

tent

to

term

inat

e th

e te

ache

r.

Del

. Cod

e An

n. T

it. 1

4 §

1413

(a).

The

supe

rior c

ourt

in

the

coun

try

whe

re th

e te

ache

r was

em

ploy

ed

hear

s the

app

eal;

the

Cour

t rev

iew

s und

er a

su

bsta

ntia

l evi

denc

e st

anda

rd.

Del

. Cod

e An

n. T

it. 1

4 §

1414

Dis

tric

t of

Colu

mbi

aJu

st c

ause

, whi

ch in

clud

es b

ut is

not

lim

ited

to th

e re

ason

s lis

ted

in R

ule:

D.

C.M

.R. T

itle

5, C

hapt

er 1

4, 1

401.

2.

Inco

mpe

tenc

e, in

clud

ing

eith

er in

abili

ty o

r fai

lure

to

per

form

satis

fact

orily

th

e du

ties o

f the

pos

ition

of

em

ploy

men

t. Ru

le:

D.C.

M.R

. Titl

e 5,

Cha

pter

14

, 140

1.2

(c).

Non

eTh

e D

CPS

IMPA

CT e

valu

-at

ion

syst

em g

uide

book

su

gges

ts th

at te

ache

rs

who

rece

ive

“ineff

ectiv

e”

ratin

g ar

e su

bjec

t to

“sep

arat

ion”

from

sch

ool

syst

em.

An im

part

ial h

earin

g offi

-ce

r con

duct

s the

hea

ring.

Ru

le: D

.C.M

.R. T

itle

5,

Chap

ter 1

4, 1

407.

4.

The

hear

ing

office

r mus

t m

ake

writ

ten

findi

ngs

and

reco

mm

enda

tions

w

ithin

10

days

of t

he

conc

lusi

on o

f the

hea

r-in

g. R

ule:

D.C

.M.R

. Titl

e 5,

Ch

apte

r 14,

140

8.10

.

The

supe

rinte

nden

t of

scho

ols h

ears

the

appe

al

or c

onve

nes a

pan

el to

do

so. R

ule:

D.C

.M.R

. Titl

e 5,

Cha

pter

14,

140

9.1.

31

App

endi

x |

ww

w.a

mer

ican

prog

ress

.org

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Flor

ida

(Pro

fes-

sion

al

serv

ice

cont

ract

s)

Just

cau

se, w

hich

incl

udes

but

is n

ot

limite

d to

imm

oral

ity, m

isco

nduc

t in

office

, inc

ompe

tenc

y, g

ross

insu

b-or

dina

tion,

will

ful n

egle

ct o

f dut

y,

or b

eing

con

vict

ed, f

ound

gui

lty,

or e

nter

ing

a pl

ea o

f gui

lty o

f any

cr

ime

invo

lvin

g m

oral

turp

itude

. Fla

. St

at. A

nn. §

101

2.33

(1)(a

).

Non

eN

one

A te

ache

r is n

oti-

fied

of u

nsat

isfa

ctor

y pe

rfor

man

ce, g

iven

tim

e to

impr

ove,

and

then

a

dete

rmin

atio

n is

mad

e as

to

whe

ther

he

or sh

e ha

s co

rrec

ted

the

perf

or-

man

ce d

efici

enci

es. A

te

ache

r may

be

reco

m-

men

ded

for n

onre

new

al

for d

ism

issa

l fol

low

ing

a fin

ding

that

per

form

ance

ha

s not

impr

oved

. Fla

. St

at. A

nn.§

101

2.33

(3)

(f),

1012

.34(

3)(d

).

The

dist

rict s

choo

l boa

rd

cond

ucts

the

hear

ing,

or

the

Div

isio

n of

Adm

in-

istr

ativ

e H

earin

gs o

f the

D

epar

tmen

t of M

anag

e-m

ent S

ervi

ces a

ssig

ns a

n ad

min

istr

ativ

e la

w ju

dge

to c

onsi

der t

he c

ase.

Fla

. St

at. A

nn.§

101

2.33

(3)

(f),(

4) 1

012.

34(6

).

The

hear

ing

mus

t be

“con

duct

ed” w

ithin

60

days

of r

ecei

pt o

f writ

ten

requ

est f

or h

earin

g. F

la.

Stat

. Ann

.§10

12.3

3(3)

(f)

(4)(a

) and

(b),

1012

.34(

6).

The

appe

llate

cou

rt in

di

stric

t whe

re th

e sc

hool

is

loca

ted

hear

s the

ap

peal

; the

cou

rt re

view

s th

e de

cisi

on u

nder

the

stan

dard

s fou

nd in

Fla

. St

at. A

nn. §

120

.68.

Geo

rgia

Inco

mpe

tenc

y, in

subo

rdin

atio

n,

will

ful n

egle

ct o

f dut

ies,

imm

oral

ity,

inci

ting,

enc

oura

ging

or c

ouns

elin

g st

uden

ts to

vio

late

stat

e la

ws o

r po

licie

s, fa

ilure

to se

cure

and

mai

n-ta

in n

eces

sary

edu

catio

nal t

rain

ing,

re

duct

ion

in st

aff d

ue to

loss

of s

tu-

dent

s or c

ance

llatio

n of

pro

gram

s or

any

othe

r goo

d an

d su

ffici

ent c

ause

. G

a. C

ode.

Ann

. 20-

2-94

0.

Non

eN

one

Non

eTh

e lo

cal b

oard

or t

he

boar

d m

ay d

esig

nate

a

trib

unal

of p

erso

ns

“pos

sess

ing

acad

emic

ex

perie

nce”

to c

onsi

der

the

case

. Ga.

Cod

e. A

nn §

20

-2-9

40 (e

)(1).

Non

eAp

peal

goe

s to

the

stat

e bo

ard

of e

duca

tion,

then

th

e co

unty

supe

rior

cour

t. G

a. C

ode.

Ann

§

20-2

-940

(f) §

116

0.

Haw

aii

Ineffi

cien

cy o

r im

mor

ality

, will

ful

viol

atio

ns o

f the

dep

artm

ent’s

po

licie

s and

rule

s, or

oth

er g

ood

and

just

cau

se. H

aw. R

ev. S

tat.

§ 30

2A-6

09.

Non

eN

one

Tenu

red

teac

hers

are

ev

alua

ted

ever

y fiv

e ye

ars.

Stat

e ev

alua

tion

guid

elin

es st

ate

that

a

teac

her w

ho re

ceiv

es a

n “u

nsat

isfa

ctor

y” ra

ting

“sha

ll” h

ave

his o

r her

co

ntra

ct te

rmin

ated

. Te

ache

rs w

ith a

“mar

-gi

nal”

ratin

g ar

e m

oved

to

an

annu

al e

valu

atio

n cy

cle.

Not

ava

ilabl

eN

ot a

vaila

ble

Not

ava

ilabl

e

32

cent

er fo

r Am

eric

an p

rogr

ess

| D

evil

in t

he D

etai

ls

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Idah

oJu

st a

nd re

ason

able

cau

se, w

hich

m

ay in

clud

e a

mat

eria

l vio

latio

n of

an

y la

wfu

l rul

es o

r reg

ulat

ions

of

the

boar

d of

trus

tees

or o

f the

stat

e bo

ard

of e

duca

tion,

or a

ny c

ondu

ct

that

cou

ld c

onst

itute

gro

unds

for

revo

catio

n of

a te

achi

ng c

ertifi

cate

.

Idah

o Co

de §

33-

513,

§33

-515

.

Non

eN

one

Non

eTh

e lo

cal b

oard

hea

rs

the

case

. Ida

ho C

ode

§ 33

-513

.

Non

eN

ot a

vaila

ble

Illin

ois

Inco

mpe

tenc

y, c

ruel

ty, n

eglig

ence

, im

mor

ality

, or o

ther

suffi

cien

t cau

se;

failu

re to

com

plet

e a

one-

year

re

med

iatio

n pl

an w

ith a

“sat

isfa

c-to

ry” o

r bet

ter r

atin

g; n

ot q

ualifi

ed

to te

ach;

whe

neve

r the

inte

rest

s of

the

scho

ols r

equi

re d

ism

issa

l, or

du

e to

a d

ecis

ion

of th

e bo

ard

to

decr

ease

the

num

ber o

f tea

ch-

ers e

mpl

oyed

by

the

boar

d, o

r to

disc

ontin

ue so

me

part

icul

ar ty

pe

of te

achi

ng se

rvic

e. 1

05 Il

l. Co

mp.

St

at. 5

/10-

22.4

; 5/2

4-12

. Alte

rna-

tive

proc

edur

es fo

r tea

cher

s exi

st

for t

each

ers c

lass

ified

und

er 1

05 Il

l. Co

mp.

Sta

t. 5/

34.

Non

e, b

ut te

ache

rs m

ay

be d

ism

isse

d fo

r “fa

ilure

to

com

plet

e a

one-

year

re

med

iatio

n pl

an w

ith

a ‘sa

tisfa

ctor

y’ o

r bet

ter

ratin

g.” 1

05 Il

l. Co

mp.

St

at. 5

/10-

22.4

.

Non

e, b

ut n

o w

ritte

n w

arni

ng is

requ

ired

whe

n th

e di

smis

sal i

s rel

ated

to

rem

edia

tion

plan

and

th

e he

arin

g offi

cer m

ust

“con

side

r and

giv

e w

eigh

t to

” all

of th

e te

ache

r’s

eval

uatio

ns. 1

05 Il

l. Co

mp.

St

at. 5

/24-

12.

Dis

mis

sal i

s rec

om-

men

ded

for a

ny te

ache

r w

ho a

fter

bei

ng ra

ted

unsa

tisfa

ctor

y fa

ils to

co

mpl

ete

any

appl

icab

le

rem

edia

tion

plan

with

a

ratin

g eq

ual t

o or

bet

ter

than

“sat

isfa

ctor

y” o

r “p

rofic

ient

.” 105

Ill.

Com

p.

Stat

. 5/2

4A-5

.

The

teac

her a

nd d

istr

ict

part

icip

ate

in a

sele

ctio

n pr

oces

s in

whi

ch th

e st

ate

boar

d of

edu

catio

n pr

ovid

es a

list

of fi

ve

impa

rtia

l hea

ring

office

rs

who

mus

t be

accr

edite

d ar

bitr

ator

s and

hav

e ha

d a

min

imum

of fi

ve y

ears

of

exp

erie

nce

in la

bor

and

educ

atio

n m

atte

rs.

105

Ill. C

omp.

Sta

t. 5/

24-1

2.

The

hear

ing

office

r may

lim

it th

e nu

mbe

r of w

it-ne

sses

to b

e su

bpoe

naed

on

beh

alf o

f the

teac

her

or th

e bo

ard

to n

o m

ore

than

10.

If a

dec

isio

n is

not

rend

ered

with

in

thre

e m

onth

s of t

he

clos

e of

the

hear

ing,

the

part

ies c

an c

hoos

e a

new

he

arin

g offi

cer t

o re

view

th

e re

cord

and

mak

e a

deci

sion

. 105

Ill.

Com

p.

Stat

. 5/2

4-12

.

The

circ

uit c

ourt

whe

re

scho

ol b

oard

mai

ntai

ns

an o

ffice

hea

rs th

e ap

peal

; the

cou

rt re

view

s al

l que

stio

ns o

f law

and

fa

ct p

rese

nted

by

the

entir

e re

cord

bef

ore

the

cour

t. N

o ne

w o

r ad

ditio

nal e

vide

nce

is

perm

itted

. 735

Ill.

Com

p.

Stat

. 5/3

-110

.

Indi

ana

Imm

oral

ity, i

nsub

ordi

natio

n, n

egle

ct

of d

uty,

inco

mpe

tenc

e, ju

stifi

able

de

crea

se in

the

num

ber o

f tea

chin

g po

sitio

ns, p

artic

ular

offe

nses

list

ed

in st

ate

law

IC 2

0-28

-5-8

(c),

and

othe

r goo

d an

d ju

st c

ause

. IC

20-2

8-7-

1. A

sem

iper

man

ent t

each

er m

ay

also

be

dism

isse

d fo

r sub

stan

tial

inab

ility

to p

erfo

rm te

achi

ng d

utie

s, a

just

ifiab

le d

ecre

ase

in th

e nu

mbe

r of

teac

hing

pos

ition

s, or

if th

e ca

n-ce

llatio

n is

in th

e be

st in

tere

st o

f the

sc

hool

. Ind

. Cod

e §

20-2

8-7-

2.

Non

eN

one

Non

eTh

e go

vern

ing

body

of

the

scho

ol c

orpo

ratio

n co

nsid

ers t

he c

ase.

Ind.

Co

de §

20-

28-7

-3.

Non

eN

ot a

vaila

ble

33

App

endi

x |

ww

w.a

mer

ican

prog

ress

.org

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Iow

aJu

st c

ause

. Iow

a Co

de §

279

.15.

Non

eN

one

Non

eTh

e sc

hool

boa

rd h

ears

th

e ca

se in

the

first

ph

ase.

The

teac

her

can

then

app

eal t

o an

ar

bitr

ator

agr

eed

upon

by

the

boar

d an

d th

e te

ache

r. Io

wa

Code

§

279.

15-2

79.1

7.

Non

eTh

e di

stric

t cou

rt re

view

s th

e ac

tion

for v

iola

tions

of

con

stitu

tiona

l or s

tatu

-to

ry p

rovi

sion

s,

an e

xces

s of t

he b

oard

or

adju

dica

tor’s

stat

utor

y au

thor

ity,

viol

atio

ns o

f a b

oard

rule

or

pol

icy

or c

ontr

act,

unla

wfu

l pro

cedu

res,

othe

r err

ors o

f law

, a

deci

sion

uns

uppo

rted

by

a pr

epon

dera

nce

of th

e co

mpe

tent

evi

denc

e in

th

e re

cord

, or u

nrea

son-

able

, arb

itrar

y, o

r cap

ri-ci

ous a

buse

of d

iscr

etio

n or

a c

lear

ly u

nwar

rant

ed

exer

cise

of d

iscr

etio

n.

Iow

a Co

de §

279

.18.

Kans

as

Goo

d ca

use.

Las

site

r v. T

opek

a U

nifie

d Sc

hool

Dis

t. N

o. 5

01. 3

47

F.Sup

p.2d

103

3. D

.Kan

., 20

04.

Non

eN

one

Non

eTh

e co

mm

issi

oner

of

educ

atio

n pr

ovid

es a

lis

t of q

ualifi

ed h

earin

g offi

cers

for t

he p

artie

s to

cho

ose

from

, or t

he

part

ies c

an m

utua

lly

agre

e to

mak

e a

requ

est

to th

e Am

eric

an A

rbitr

a-tio

n As

soci

atio

n fo

r an

arbi

trat

or to

serv

e as

the

hear

ing

office

r. Ka

n. S

tat.

Ann.

§ 7

2-54

38.

All r

elev

ant e

vide

nce

shal

l be

adm

issi

ble,

but

th

e he

arin

g offi

cer m

ay

excl

ude

any

evid

ence

if

he o

r she

bel

ieve

s th

e va

lue

of th

e ev

iden

ce is

“s

ubst

antia

lly o

ut-

wei

ghed

” by

the

time

it w

ill ta

ke to

adm

it. K

an.

Stat

. Ann

. § 7

2-54

42.

The

dist

rict c

ourt

hea

rs

the

appe

al. K

an. S

tat.

Ann.

72-

5443

.

34

cent

er fo

r Am

eric

an p

rogr

ess

| D

evil

in t

he D

etai

ls

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Kent

ucky

Insu

bord

inat

ion,

imm

oral

cha

ract

er

or c

ondu

ct u

nbec

omin

g a

teac

her;

phys

ical

or m

enta

l dis

abili

ty; i

nef-

ficie

ncy,

inco

mpe

tenc

y, o

r neg

lect

of

dut

y. K

y. R

ev. S

tat.

§ 16

1.79

0.

Non

eN

one,

but

a te

ache

r m

ust r

ecei

ve a

writ

ten

stat

emen

t ide

ntify

ing

the

prob

lem

s or d

ifficu

lties

, w

hich

mus

t be

supp

orte

d by

a w

ritte

n re

cord

of t

he

teac

her’s

per

form

ance

. Ky.

Re

v. S

tat.§

161

.790

.

Non

eTh

e co

mm

issi

oner

of

educ

atio

n no

min

ates

a

thre

e-m

embe

r trib

unal

in

clud

ing

one

teac

her,

who

may

be

retir

ed, o

ne

adm

inis

trat

or, w

ho m

ay

be re

tired

, and

one

“lay

” pe

rson

. Ky.

Rev

. Sta

t.§

161.

790.

The

hear

ing

mus

t beg

in

with

in 4

5 da

ys o

f the

te

ache

r req

uest

ing

a he

arin

g. K

y. R

ev. S

tat.§

16

1.79

0.

The

circ

uit c

ourt

revi

ews

the

actio

n fo

r vio

latio

ns

of c

onst

itutio

nal o

r sta

tu-

tory

pro

visi

ons;

exc

ess

of th

e ag

ency

’s st

atut

ory

auth

ority

; sup

port

of

subs

tant

ial e

vide

nce

on

the

who

le re

cord

; dec

i-si

ons c

hara

cter

ized

by

arbi

trar

y, c

apric

ious

, or

abus

e of

dis

cret

ion;

and

ot

her p

roce

dura

l iss

ues.

Ky. R

ev. S

tat.§

13B.

150.

Loui

sian

aW

illfu

l neg

lect

of d

uty,

inco

mpe

-te

ncy,

dis

hone

sty,

or i

mm

oral

ity;

or b

eing

a m

embe

r of o

r con

trib

ut-

ing

to a

ny g

roup

, org

aniz

atio

n,

mov

emen

t, or

cor

pora

tion

that

is b

y la

w o

r inj

unct

ion

proh

ibite

d fr

om

oper

atin

g in

the

stat

e of

Lou

isia

na.

La. R

ev. S

tat.

Ann.

§ 1

7:44

3.

Non

eN

one

A te

ache

r who

rece

ives

an

uns

atis

fact

ory

ratin

g is

pla

ced

in a

n “in

tens

ive

assi

stan

ce p

rogr

am.” I

f th

e te

ache

r doe

s not

co

mpl

ete

the

prog

ram

or

con

tinue

s to

perf

orm

un

satis

fact

orily

aft

er a

fo

rmal

eva

luat

ion

con-

duct

ed a

fter

com

plet

ing

the

prog

ram

, the

n th

e lo

cal b

oard

can

initi

ate

term

inat

ion

proc

eed-

ings

. La.

Rev

. Sta

t. An

n. §

17

:390

2.

The

scho

ol b

oard

con

sid-

ers t

he c

ase.

La.

Rev

. Sta

t. An

n. §

17:

443.

Non

eA

“cou

rt o

f com

pete

nt

juris

dict

ion”

hea

rs a

ny

appe

als.

La. R

ev. S

tat.

Ann.

§ 1

7:44

3.

Mai

neJu

st c

ause

, fou

nd u

nfit t

o te

ach,

or

deem

ed u

npro

fitab

le b

y th

e sc

hool

bo

ard.

Me.

Rev

. Sta

t. An

n. T

it. 2

0A, §

13

201,

§ 1

3202

.

Non

eN

one

Non

eTh

e sc

hool

boa

rd

cond

ucts

the

inve

stig

a-tio

n an

d he

arin

g. M

e.

Rev.

Sta

t. An

n. T

it. 2

0A §

13

202.

Non

eN

ot a

vaila

ble.

Mar

ylan

d Im

mor

ality

, mis

cond

uct i

n offi

ce,

insu

bord

inat

ion,

inco

mpe

tenc

y, o

r w

illfu

l neg

lect

of d

uty.

Md.

Cod

e An

n. E

duc.

§6-

202.

Non

eN

one

Non

eTh

e co

unty

boa

rd

may

cho

ose

a he

arin

g ex

amin

er to

con

duct

the

hear

ing.

Md.

Cod

e An

n.

Educ

. § 6

-203

.

Non

eTh

e St

ate

Boar

d of

Edu

-ca

tion

hear

s the

app

eal.

Md.

Cod

e An

n. E

duc.

§

6-20

3.

35

App

endi

x |

ww

w.a

mer

ican

prog

ress

.org

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Mas

sach

u-se

tts

Ineffi

cien

cy, i

ncom

pete

ncy,

inca

pac-

ity, c

ondu

ct u

nbec

omin

g a

teac

her,

insu

bord

inat

ion,

failu

re to

satis

fy

teac

her p

erfo

rman

ce st

anda

rds,

or

othe

r jus

t cau

se. M

ass.

Gen

. Law

s Ch

p. 7

1 §

42.

Non

e, a

lthou

gh a

teac

her

may

be

dism

issed

for a

fa

ilure

to sa

tisfy

teac

her

perfo

rman

ce st

anda

rds s

et

out b

y th

e sc

hool

com

mit-

tee

or d

evel

oped

by

colle

c-tiv

e ba

rgai

ning

. Mas

s. Ge

n.

Law

s Chp

. 71

§ 42

.

Non

eN

one

The

Com

mis

sion

er o

f Ed

ucat

ion

and

the

Amer

i-ca

n Ar

bitr

atio

n As

soci

a-tio

n re

com

men

d a

list o

f ar

bitr

ator

s fro

m w

hich

th

e pa

rtie

s can

cho

ose

an a

rbitr

ator

.. M

ass.

Gen

. La

ws C

hp. 7

1 §

42.

The

arbi

trat

or’s

deci

sion

m

ust b

e is

sued

with

in

one

mon

th o

f the

he

arin

g’s c

ompl

etio

n un

less

the

part

ies a

gree

ot

herw

ise.

Mas

s. G

en.

Law

s Chp

. 71

§ 42

.

The

supe

rior c

ourt

hea

rs

the

appe

al.

Mas

s. G

en.

Law

s Chp

. 71

§ 42

.

Mic

higa

nRe

ason

able

and

just

cau

se. M

ich.

Co

mp.

Law

s § 3

8.10

1.N

one

Non

eN

one

The

teac

her fi

les a

n ap

peal

with

the

tenu

re

com

mis

sion

aft

er re

ceiv

-in

g no

tice

of d

ism

issa

l. An

adm

inis

trat

ive

law

ju

dge

who

is a

n at

torn

ey

licen

sed

to p

ract

ice

law

in th

e st

ate

and

is

empl

oyed

by

the

depa

rt-

men

t of e

duca

tion

hear

s th

e ca

se. M

ich.

Com

p.

Law

s § 3

8.10

4 (3

).

The

hear

ing

mus

t co

nclu

de n

o la

ter

than

90

days

aft

er th

e te

ache

r file

s a c

laim

for

an a

ppea

l. Th

e ju

dge

mus

t ser

ve a

pre

limin

ary

deci

sion

no

late

r tha

n 60

day

s aft

er th

e ca

se’s

subm

issi

on. T

he te

nure

co

mm

issi

on m

akes

a

final

dec

isio

n. M

ich.

Co

mp.

Law

s § 3

8.10

4 (5

).

The

teac

her c

an a

ppea

l th

e te

nure

com

mis

sion

’s de

cisi

on to

the

cour

t of

appe

als.

Mic

h. C

omp.

La

ws §

38.

104

(7).

Min

neso

taTo

dis

mis

s at

the

end

of th

e ye

ar:

ineffi

cien

cy; n

egle

ct o

f dut

y or

pe

rsis

tent

vio

latio

n of

sch

ool l

aws,

ru

les,

regu

latio

ns, o

r dire

ctiv

es;

cond

uct u

nbec

omin

g a

teac

her

that

mat

eria

lly im

pairs

the

teac

her’s

edu

catio

nal e

ffect

iven

ess;

ot

her g

ood

and

suffi

cien

t gro

unds

re

nder

ing

the

teac

her u

nfit.

To d

ismiss

imm

edia

tely

: im

mor

al

cond

uct,

insu

bord

inat

ion,

or

conv

ictio

n of

a fe

lony

; con

duct

th

at re

quire

s im

med

iate

rem

oval

; te

achi

ng w

ithou

t per

miss

ion

of th

e sc

hool

boa

rd; g

ross

ineffi

cien

cy th

at

the

teac

her h

as fa

iled

to c

orre

ct a

fter

reas

onab

le w

ritte

n no

tice;

will

ful

negl

ect o

f dut

y; o

r con

tinui

ng p

hysi

-ca

l or m

enta

l disa

bilit

y su

bseq

uent

to

a 1

2-m

onth

leav

e of

abs

ence

and

in

abili

ty to

qua

lify

for r

eins

tate

men

t. M

inn.

Sta

t. §1

22A.

40.

Non

eN

one

Non

eTh

e sc

hool

boa

rd h

ears

th

e ca

se o

r an

arbi

trat

or

chos

en b

y th

e pa

rtie

s if

the

teac

her c

hoos

es.

Min

n. S

tat.

§122

A.40

.

Non

eN

ot a

vaila

ble

36

cent

er fo

r Am

eric

an p

rogr

ess

| D

evil

in t

he D

etai

ls

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Mis

siss

ippi

Inco

mpe

tenc

e, n

egle

ct o

f dut

y,

imm

oral

con

duct

, int

empe

ranc

e,

brut

al tr

eatm

ent o

f a p

upil,

or o

ther

go

od c

ause

. Mis

s. Co

de A

nn. §

37

-9-5

9.

Non

eN

one

A te

ache

r who

rece

ives

an

uns

atis

fact

ory

ratin

g is

re

quire

d to

hav

e a

prof

es-

sion

al d

evel

opm

ent p

lan.

If

the

teac

her f

ails

to p

er-

form

aft

er o

ne y

ear,

the

loca

l adm

inis

trat

ion

can

reev

alua

te th

e te

ache

r’s

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

-m

ent p

lan

and

mak

e an

y ne

cess

ary

adju

stm

ents

. If

the

teac

her f

ails

to

perf

orm

aft

er th

e se

cond

ye

ar, t

he a

dmin

istr

atio

n ca

n re

com

men

d th

at

the

loca

l sch

ool b

oard

di

smis

s the

teac

her.

This

po

licy

only

app

lies t

o te

ache

rs in

low

-per

form

-in

g sc

hool

s. Mis

s. Co

de

Ann.

§ 3

7-18

-7.

The

scho

ol b

oard

or

a h

earin

g offi

cer

appo

inte

d by

the

boar

d he

ars t

he c

ase.

Mis

s.Co

de A

nn. §

37-

9-59

.

Non

eTh

e ch

ance

ry c

ourt

re

view

s the

app

eal f

or

supp

ort b

y an

y su

bsta

n-tia

l evi

denc

e, a

rbitr

arin

ess

or c

apric

ious

ness

, or v

io-

latio

n of

som

e st

atut

ory

or c

onst

itutio

nal r

ight

of

the

empl

oyee

. Miss

. Cod

e An

n. §

37-

9-11

3.

Mis

sour

iPh

ysic

al o

r men

tal c

ondi

tion

unfit

-tin

g to

inst

ruct

or a

ssoc

iate

with

ch

ildre

n; im

mor

al c

ondu

ct; i

ncom

-pe

tenc

y, in

effici

ency

, or i

nsub

ordi

-na

tion;

will

ful o

r per

sist

ent v

iola

tion

of o

r fai

lure

to o

bey

the

stat

e’s

scho

ol la

ws o

r the

dis

tric

t boa

rd o

f ed

ucat

ion’

s pub

lishe

d re

gula

tions

; ex

cess

ive

or u

nrea

sona

ble

abse

nce;

or

con

vict

ion

of a

felo

ny o

r a c

rime

invo

lvin

g m

oral

turp

itude

. Mo.

Rev

. St

at. §

168.

114.

Non

eN

one,

but

the

teac

her

mus

t be

give

n 30

day

s no

tice

of th

e ca

uses

that

co

uld

resu

lt in

a c

harg

e of

inco

mpe

tenc

e or

inef

-fic

ienc

y. T

he su

perin

ten-

dent

or a

repr

esen

tativ

e of

th

e su

perin

tend

ent m

ust

mee

t with

the

teac

her t

o re

solv

e th

e m

atte

r. M

o.

Rev.

Sta

t. §

168.

116.

Non

eTh

e bo

ard

of e

duca

tion

cons

ider

s the

cas

e. M

o.

Rev.

Sta

t. §

168.

118.

The

scho

ol b

oard

can

lim

it th

e te

ache

r to

10

witn

esse

s. M

o. R

ev. S

tat.

§ 16

8.11

8.

The

circ

uit c

ourt

of

the

coun

ty w

here

the

empl

oyin

g sc

hool

dis

tric

t is

loca

ted

hear

s the

ap

peal

. Mo.

Rev

. Sta

t. §

168.

120.

37

App

endi

x |

ww

w.a

mer

ican

prog

ress

.org

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Mon

tana

Goo

d ca

use.

Mon

t. Co

de A

nn. §

20

-4-2

03N

one

Non

eN

one

The

dist

rict t

rust

ees

cons

ider

the

case

. Mon

t. Co

de A

nn. §

20-

4-20

4.

Non

eTh

e te

ache

r may

app

eal

a di

smis

sal d

ecis

ion

to

the

coun

ty su

perin

ten-

dent

and

the

dist

rict

cour

t if t

he te

ache

r’s

empl

oym

ent i

s not

co

vere

d by

a c

olle

ctiv

e ba

rgai

ning

agr

eem

ent.

If th

e te

ache

r is c

over

ed b

y a

colle

ctiv

e ba

rgai

ning

ag

reem

ent,

the

teac

her

mus

t app

eal t

o an

arb

i-tr

ator

. Mon

t. Co

de A

nn.

20-4

-204

.

Neb

rask

aIn

com

pete

ncy,

neg

lect

of d

uty,

un

prof

essi

onal

con

duct

, ins

ubor

-di

natio

n, im

mor

ality

, phy

sica

l or

men

tal i

ncap

acity

, fai

lure

to g

ive

evid

ence

of p

rofe

ssio

nal g

row

th,

othe

r con

duct

that

subs

tant

ially

in

terf

eres

with

the

cont

inue

d pe

r-fo

rman

ce o

f dut

ies,

failu

re to

acc

ept

empl

oym

ent,

redu

ctio

n in

forc

e,

revo

catio

n or

susp

ensi

on o

f lic

ense

. N

eb. R

ev. S

tat.

§§ 7

9-82

4, 7

9-82

9.

Inco

mpe

tenc

y, “w

hich

in

clud

es, b

ut is

not

lim

ited

to, d

emon

stra

ted

defic

ienc

ies o

r sho

rtco

m-

ings

in k

now

ledg

e of

su

bjec

t mat

ter o

r tea

ch-

ing

or a

dmin

istr

ativ

e sk

ills”

Neb

. Rev

. Sta

t. §§

79

-824

.

Non

eN

one

The

scho

ol b

oard

con

sid-

ers t

he c

ase.

Neb

. Rev

.St.

§ 79

-832

.

Non

eN

ot a

vaila

ble.

38

cent

er fo

r Am

eric

an p

rogr

ess

| D

evil

in t

he D

etai

ls

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Nev

ada

Ineffi

cien

cy; i

mm

oral

ity; u

npro

fes-

siona

l con

duct

; ins

ubor

dina

tion;

ne

glec

t of d

uty;

phy

sical

or m

enta

l in

capa

city

; dec

reas

e in

the

num

ber

of p

ositi

ons;

conv

ictio

n of

a fe

lony

or

of a

crim

e in

volv

ing

mor

al tu

rpitu

de;

inad

equa

te p

erfo

rman

ce; e

vide

nt

unfit

ness

for s

ervi

ce; f

ailu

re to

com

-pl

y w

ith re

ason

able

requ

irem

ents

;

failu

re to

show

impr

ovem

ent a

nd

evid

ence

of p

rofe

ssio

nal t

rain

ing

and

grow

th; a

dvoc

atin

g fo

r the

ov

erth

row

of t

he g

over

nmen

t of

the

Uni

ted

Stat

es o

r of t

he st

ate

of

Nev

ada;

adv

ocat

ing

or te

achi

ng

com

mun

ism

with

the

inte

nt to

in

doct

rinat

e pu

pils

; any

cau

se

that

con

stitu

tes g

roun

ds fo

r the

re

voca

tion

of a

teac

her’s

lice

nse;

w

illfu

l neg

lect

or f

ailu

re to

obs

erve

an

d ca

rry

out t

he re

quire

men

ts

of T

itle

34; d

isho

nest

y; b

reac

hes

in th

e se

curit

y or

con

fiden

tialit

y of

ach

ieve

men

t and

pro

ficie

ncy

exam

inat

ion

ques

tions

and

ans

wer

s;

inte

ntio

nal f

ailu

re to

obs

erve

and

ca

rry

out t

he re

quire

men

ts o

f a p

lan

to e

nsur

e th

e se

curit

y of

exa

min

a-tio

ns; a

vers

ive

inte

rven

tion

or u

se

of re

stra

ints

on

a pu

pil w

ith a

dis

-ab

ility

. N

ev. R

ev. S

tat.

391.

312.

“Ina

dequ

ate

perf

or-

man

ce” i

s a c

ause

for d

is-

mis

sal b

ut is

und

efine

d.

Teac

hers

may

als

o be

di

smis

sed

for a

“fai

lure

to

show

nor

mal

impr

ove-

men

t and

evi

denc

e of

pr

ofes

sion

al tr

aini

ng a

nd

grow

th.” N

ev. R

ev. S

tat.

391.

312.

If an

em

ploy

ee’s

cond

uct

may

lead

to d

ism

issa

l, th

e em

ploy

ee m

ust r

ecei

ve

notic

e of

adm

onis

hmen

t in

writ

ing—

incl

udin

g a

desc

riptio

n of

defi

cien

cies

an

d ac

tion

nece

ssar

y to

co

rrec

t tho

se d

efici

en-

cies

—an

d be

giv

en

“rea

sona

ble

time

for

impr

ovem

ent”

that

shou

ld

not e

xcee

d th

ree

mon

ths

for t

he fi

rst a

dmon

ition

. N

ev. R

ev. S

tat.

§ 39

1.31

3.

Non

eA

hea

ring

office

r re

ques

ted

by th

e su

perin

tend

ent o

f pub

lic

inst

ruct

ion

or m

utua

lly

sele

cted

by

the

part

ies

cons

ider

s th

e ca

se. N

ev.

Rev.

Sta

t. §

391.

3161

The

hear

ing

office

r mus

t co

mpl

ete

the

hear

ing

with

in 3

0 da

ys a

fter

the

time

of d

esig

natio

n an

d fil

e a

writ

ten

repo

rt n

o la

ter t

han

15 d

ays a

fter

th

e co

nclu

sion

of t

he

hear

ing.

Nev

. Rev

. Sta

t. §

391.

3193

.

The

dist

rict c

ourt

con

sid-

ers t

he a

ppea

l. N

ev. R

ev.

Stat

. § 3

91.3

194.

39

App

endi

x |

ww

w.a

mer

ican

prog

ress

.org

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

New

H

amps

hire

Imm

oral

ity, f

ailu

re to

satis

fact

orily

m

aint

ain

the

com

pete

ncy

stan

dard

s es

tabl

ishe

d by

the

scho

ol d

istr

ict,

or fa

ilure

to c

onfo

rm to

regu

latio

ns

pres

crib

ed. N

.H. R

ev. S

tat.

Ann.

§

189.

13.

Non

eTh

e su

perin

tend

ent o

f th

e lo

cal s

choo

l dis

tric

t m

ust d

emon

stra

te in

ca

ses o

f non

reno

min

atio

n be

caus

e of

uns

atis

fact

ory

perf

orm

ance

that

the

teac

her r

ecei

ved

writ

ten

notic

e th

at th

e un

satis

fac-

tory

per

form

ance

cou

ld

lead

to d

ism

issa

l, an

d th

at th

e te

ache

r had

a

reas

onab

le o

ppor

tuni

ty to

co

rrec

t the

pro

blem

s and

fa

iled

to d

o so

. N.H

. Rev

. St

at. A

nn. §

189

:14-

a.

Non

eTh

e sc

hool

boa

rd c

onsi

d-er

s the

cas

e.

N.H

. Rev

. Sta

t. An

n. §

18

9:14

-a.

Non

eA

teac

her m

ay a

ppea

l a

boar

d’s d

ecis

ion

by p

eti-

tioni

ng th

e st

ate

boar

d of

edu

catio

n or

requ

est-

ing

arbi

trat

ion

unde

r th

e te

rms o

f a c

olle

ctiv

e ba

rgai

ning

agr

eem

ent,

if ap

plic

able

, but

may

not

do

bot

h. N

.H. R

ev. S

tat.

§ 18

9:14

-b.

New

Jer

sey

Ineffi

cien

cy, i

ncap

acity

, unb

ecom

-in

g co

nduc

t, or

oth

er ju

st c

ause

. N.J.

St

at. A

nn. §

18A

:6-1

0.

Non

eIf

the

char

ge is

“ine

f-fic

ienc

y,” th

e bo

ard

mus

t pr

ovid

e th

e em

ploy

ee

with

writ

ten

notic

e of

the

alle

ged

ineffi

cien

cy a

nd

allo

w a

t lea

st 9

0 da

ys fo

r th

e em

ploy

ee to

cor

rect

an

d ov

erco

me

the

inef

-fic

ienc

y. N

.J. S

tat.

Ann.

§

18A:

6-11

.

Non

eTh

e lo

cal b

oard

of e

duca

-tio

n m

akes

the

initi

al

dete

rmin

atio

n to

dis

mis

s. N

.J. S

tat.

Ann.

§ 1

8A:6

-11.

The

char

ge is

then

fo

rwar

ded

to th

e co

m-

mis

sion

er o

r a p

erso

n ap

poin

ted

to a

ct o

n th

e co

mm

issi

oner

’s be

half

to

mak

e a

final

det

erm

ina-

tion.

If th

e co

mm

issi

oner

de

term

ines

dis

mis

sal

is n

eces

sary

, the

cas

e is

then

refe

rred

to th

e O

ffice

of A

dmin

istr

ativ

e La

w. N

.J. S

tat.

Ann

§ 18

A:6-

16.

For t

hose

hea

rings

co

nduc

ted

by th

e O

ffice

of

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Law

, pr

ehea

ring

conf

eren

ces

mus

t be

com

plet

ed

with

in 3

0 da

ys o

f ref

erra

l. Th

e he

arin

g m

ust b

e he

ld w

ithin

30

days

aft

er

disc

over

y is

com

plet

ed.

N.J.

Sta

t. An

n. 5

2:14

B-10

.1.

Not

ava

ilabl

e

40

cent

er fo

r Am

eric

an p

rogr

ess

| D

evil

in t

he D

etai

ls

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

New

M

exic

oJu

st c

ause

N.M

. Sta

t. An

n. §

22-

10A-

24.

Non

eN

one

If a

teac

her r

ecei

ves

an u

nsat

isfa

ctor

y ev

alua

tion,

the

scho

ol

dist

rict p

rovi

des t

he

teac

her w

ith p

rofe

s-si

onal

dev

elop

men

t an

d pe

er in

terv

entio

n. If

th

e te

ache

r stil

l fai

ls to

de

mon

stra

te e

ssen

tial

com

pete

ncie

s by

the

end

of th

at sc

hool

yea

r, a

dist

rict m

ay c

hoos

e no

t to

cont

ract

with

that

te

ache

r. N

.M. A

dmin

. Co

de §

6.6

9.4.

10.

The

loca

l sch

ool b

oard

or

gov

erni

ng a

utho

rity

hear

s the

cas

e. N

.M. S

tat.

Ann.

§ 2

2-10

A-24

.

The

empl

oyee

can

then

ap

peal

to a

n ar

bitr

ator

in

a de

nov

o he

arin

g. T

he

inde

pend

ent a

rbitr

ator

’s de

cisi

on is

be

bind

ing

on b

oth

part

ies a

nd is

fin

al a

nd n

onap

peal

-ab

le e

xcep

t whe

n th

e de

cisi

on w

as p

rocu

red

by c

orru

ptio

n, fr

aud,

de

cept

ion,

or c

ollu

sion

, in

whi

ch c

ase

it ca

n be

ap

peal

ed to

the

dist

rict

cour

t in

the

judi

cial

dis

-tr

ict i

n w

hich

the

publ

ic

scho

ol o

r sta

te a

genc

y is

lo

cate

d. N

.M. S

tat.

Ann.

§

22-1

0A-2

5.

New

Yor

kIn

subo

rdin

atio

n, im

mor

al c

hara

cter

or

con

duct

unb

ecom

ing

a te

ache

r, in

effici

ency

, inc

ompe

tenc

y, p

hysi

cal

or m

enta

l dis

abili

ty, n

egle

ct o

f dut

y,

failu

re to

mai

ntai

n ce

rtifi

catio

n. N

.Y.

Educ

. Law

§ 3

014

Non

eN

one

Non

eTh

e pa

rtie

s sel

ect a

si

ngle

offi

cer f

rom

a li

st

of a

rbitr

ator

s to

hear

the

case

. If t

he c

ase

invo

lves

pe

dago

gica

l cha

rges

, th

e te

ache

r can

opt

for

a pa

nel c

onsi

stin

g of

a

hear

ing

office

r, a

pane

l m

embe

r sel

ecte

d by

the

teac

her,

and

a m

embe

r se

lect

ed b

y th

e bo

ard.

N

.Y. E

duc.

Law

§ 3

020a

.

The

preh

earin

g co

nfer

-en

ce m

ust b

e he

ld w

ithin

15

day

s of h

earin

g offi

cer

sele

ctio

n.

The

final

hea

ring

mus

t be

com

plet

ed n

o la

ter

than

60

days

aft

er th

e pr

ehea

ring

conf

eren

ce

with

a d

ecis

ion

issu

ed n

o la

ter t

han

30 d

ays a

fter

th

e la

st h

earin

g da

y. N

.Y.

Educ

. Law

§ 3

020a

.

The

New

Yor

k St

ate

Supr

eme

Cour

t hea

rs th

e ap

peal

, and

the

cour

t m

ay v

acat

e fo

r rea

sons

sp

ecifi

ed in

stat

e la

w.

N.Y

. Edu

c. L

aw §

302

0a.

41

App

endi

x |

ww

w.a

mer

ican

prog

ress

.org

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Nor

th

Caro

lina

Inad

equa

te p

erfo

rman

ce, i

mm

oral

-ity

, ins

ubor

dina

tion,

neg

lect

of

duty

, phy

sica

l or m

enta

l inc

apac

ity,

habi

tual

or e

xces

sive

use

of a

lcoh

ol

or n

onm

edic

al u

se o

f a c

ontr

olle

d su

bsta

nce,

con

vict

ion

of a

felo

ny o

r a

crim

e in

volv

ing

mor

al tu

rpitu

de,

advo

catin

g th

e ov

erth

row

of t

he

U.S.

gov

ernm

ent o

r the

stat

e of

N

orth

Car

olin

a, fa

ilure

to fu

lfill

dutie

s and

resp

onsi

bilit

ies;

failu

re to

co

mpl

y w

ith re

ason

able

requ

ire-

men

ts; a

ny c

ause

that

con

stitu

tes

grou

nds f

or re

voca

ting

a ca

reer

te

ache

r’s te

achi

ng c

ertifi

cate

, fai

lure

to

mai

ntai

n a

curr

ent t

each

ing

cert

ifica

te, f

ailu

re to

repa

y m

oney

ow

ed to

the

stat

e; ju

stifi

able

de

crea

se in

num

ber o

f pos

ition

s;

or p

rovi

ding

fals

e in

form

atio

n or

kn

owin

gly

omitt

ing

a m

ater

ial f

act

on a

n ap

plic

atio

n fo

r em

ploy

men

t. N

.C. G

en. S

tat.

§ 11

5C-3

25.

Non

eFa

ct fi

nder

mus

t giv

e co

n-si

dera

tion

to re

gula

r and

sp

ecia

l eva

luat

ion

repo

rts

and

publ

ishe

d st

anda

rds

of p

erfo

rman

ce fr

om

the

scho

ol d

istr

ict w

hen

dete

rmin

ing

whe

ther

an

empl

oyee

’s pr

ofes

sion

al

perf

orm

ance

is a

dequ

ate.

Fa

ilure

to g

ive

notic

e of

in

adeq

uacy

is c

onsi

dere

d co

nclu

sive

evi

denc

e of

sa

tisfa

ctor

y pe

rfor

man

ce.

N.C

. Gen

. Sta

t. §

115C

-32

5.

The

supe

rinte

nden

t ha

s aut

horit

y in

low

-pe

rfor

min

g sc

hool

s to

dism

iss a

teac

her a

fter

on

e ne

gativ

e ra

ting.

N.C

. G

en. S

tat.

§ 11

5C-3

33

(b)(1

).

The

empl

oyee

can

ch

oose

to h

ave

a he

ar-

ing

in fr

ont o

f a c

ase

man

ager

join

tly se

lect

ed

by th

e su

perin

tend

ent

and

empl

oyee

or t

he

empl

oyee

may

go

stra

ight

to a

hea

ring

with

th

e sc

hool

boa

rd.

The

stat

e bo

ard

of e

duca

-tio

n m

aint

ains

a m

aste

r lis

t of n

o m

ore

than

42

qual

ified

cas

e m

anag

ers.

The

case

man

ager

s mus

t be

cer

tified

arb

itrat

ors

and

com

plet

e a

spec

ial

trai

ning

cou

rse

appr

oved

by

the

stat

e bo

ard

of

educ

atio

n. N

.C. G

en. S

tat.

§ 11

5C-3

25.

The

case

man

ager

is

requ

ired

to h

old

a fu

ll-ev

iden

ce h

earin

g an

d re

port

with

in 1

0 da

ys o

f be

ing

appo

inte

d. T

he

repo

rt is

pro

vide

d to

th

e su

perin

tend

ent a

nd

teac

her.

The

supe

rinte

n-de

nt m

akes

a d

ecis

ion

whe

ther

to c

ontin

ue to

re

com

men

d di

smis

sal t

o th

e bo

ard

of e

duca

tion.

If th

e te

ache

r opt

s out

of

a ca

se m

anag

er h

earin

g an

d op

ts fo

r a b

oard

he

arin

g, li

mite

d ev

iden

ce

is c

onsi

dere

d in

clud

ing

docu

men

tary

evi

denc

e us

ed to

supp

ort o

r reb

ut

dism

issa

l rec

omm

enda

-tio

n, w

ritte

n st

atem

ents

by

the

supe

rinte

nden

t an

d te

ache

r, an

d or

al

argu

men

ts b

ased

on

reco

rd b

efor

e th

e bo

ard.

The

supe

rior c

ourt

hea

rs

the

appe

al.

N.C

. Gen

. St

at. §

115

C-32

5.

42

cent

er fo

r Am

eric

an p

rogr

ess

| D

evil

in t

he D

etai

ls

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Nor

th

Dak

ota

To d

ism

iss:

imm

oral

con

duct

, ins

ub-

ordi

natio

n, c

onvi

ctio

n of

a fe

lony

, co

nduc

t unb

ecom

ing

the

posi

tion,

fa

ilure

to p

erfo

rm c

ontr

acte

d du

ties w

ithou

t jus

tifica

tion,

gro

ss

ineffi

cien

cy n

ot c

orre

cted

aft

er

writ

ten

notic

e, c

ontin

uing

phy

sica

l or

men

tal d

isab

ility

that

rend

ers

the

indi

vidu

al u

nfit o

r una

ble

to

perf

orm

dut

ies.

N.D

. Cen

t. Co

de §

15

.1-1

5-07

.

To n

onre

new

a c

ontr

act:

The

dist

rict

mus

t doc

umen

t spe

cific

find

ings

re

late

d to

the

teac

her’s

abi

lity,

co

mpe

tenc

e, o

r qua

lifica

tions

in

per

form

ance

repo

rts,

or th

e no

nren

ewal

mus

t be

rela

ted

to th

e di

stric

t’s n

eeds

to re

duce

staff

. N

.D.

Cent

. Cod

e §

15.1

-15-

05.

Non

eN

one

Non

eFo

r dis

mis

sals

, an

adm

inis

trat

ive

law

judg

e co

nsid

ers t

he c

ase.

N.D

. Ce

nt. C

ode

§ 15

.1-1

5-08

For n

onre

new

al, t

he

boar

d of

the

scho

ol

dist

rict c

onsi

ders

the

case

. N.D

. Cen

t. Co

de §

15

.1-1

5-06

.

Non

eFo

r app

eals

of d

ism

issa

ls,

the

dist

rict c

ourt

hea

rs

the

appe

al.

N.D

. Cen

t. Co

de §

15.

1-15

-08.

Ohi

oG

ood

and

just

cau

se O

hio

Rev.

Cod

e An

n. §

331

9.16

Non

eN

one

Non

eTh

e te

ache

r may

requ

est

a he

arin

g in

fron

t of t

he

boar

d or

a re

fere

e.

The

teac

her a

nd b

oard

m

ust j

oint

ly c

hoos

e a

ref-

eree

from

a li

st p

rovi

ded

by th

e su

perin

tend

ent o

f pu

blic

inst

ruct

ion.

Ref

-er

ees a

re so

licite

d fr

om

the

stat

e ba

r ass

ocia

tion.

O

hio

Rev.

Cod

e An

n. §

33

19.1

6.

Non

eTh

e co

urt o

f com

mon

pl

eas h

ears

the

appe

al;

the

cour

t mus

t “ex

amin

e th

e tr

ansc

ript a

nd re

cord

of

the

hear

ing

and

shal

l ho

ld su

ch a

dditi

onal

he

arin

gs a

s it c

onsi

ders

ad

visa

ble,

at w

hich

it

may

con

side

r oth

er e

vi-

denc

e in

add

ition

to th

e tr

ansc

ript a

nd re

cord

.” O

hio

Rev.

Cod

e An

n. §

33

19.1

6.

43

App

endi

x |

ww

w.a

mer

ican

prog

ress

.org

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Nor

th

Dak

ota

To d

ism

iss:

imm

oral

con

duct

, ins

ub-

ordi

natio

n, c

onvi

ctio

n of

a fe

lony

, co

nduc

t unb

ecom

ing

the

posi

tion,

fa

ilure

to p

erfo

rm c

ontr

acte

d du

ties w

ithou

t jus

tifica

tion,

gro

ss

ineffi

cien

cy n

ot c

orre

cted

aft

er

writ

ten

notic

e, c

ontin

uing

phy

sica

l or

men

tal d

isab

ility

that

rend

ers

the

indi

vidu

al u

nfit o

r una

ble

to

perf

orm

dut

ies.

N.D

. Cen

t. Co

de §

15

.1-1

5-07

.

To n

onre

new

a c

ontr

act:

The

dist

rict

mus

t doc

umen

t spe

cific

find

ings

re

late

d to

the

teac

her’s

abi

lity,

co

mpe

tenc

e, o

r qua

lifica

tions

in

per

form

ance

repo

rts,

or th

e no

nren

ewal

mus

t be

rela

ted

to th

e di

stric

t’s n

eeds

to re

duce

staff

. N

.D.

Cent

. Cod

e §

15.1

-15-

05.

Non

eN

one

Non

eFo

r dis

mis

sals

, an

adm

inis

trat

ive

law

judg

e co

nsid

ers t

he c

ase.

N.D

. Ce

nt. C

ode

§ 15

.1-1

5-08

For n

onre

new

al, t

he

boar

d of

the

scho

ol

dist

rict c

onsi

ders

the

case

. N.D

. Cen

t. Co

de §

15

.1-1

5-06

.

Non

eFo

r app

eals

of d

ism

issa

ls,

the

dist

rict c

ourt

hea

rs

the

appe

al.

N.D

. Cen

t. Co

de §

15.

1-15

-08.

Ohi

oG

ood

and

just

cau

se O

hio

Rev.

Cod

e An

n. §

331

9.16

Non

eN

one

Non

eTh

e te

ache

r may

requ

est

a he

arin

g in

fron

t of t

he

boar

d or

a re

fere

e.

The

teac

her a

nd b

oard

m

ust j

oint

ly c

hoos

e a

ref-

eree

from

a li

st p

rovi

ded

by th

e su

perin

tend

ent o

f pu

blic

inst

ruct

ion.

Ref

-er

ees a

re so

licite

d fr

om

the

stat

e ba

r ass

ocia

tion.

O

hio

Rev.

Cod

e An

n. §

33

19.1

6.

Non

eTh

e co

urt o

f com

mon

pl

eas h

ears

the

appe

al;

the

cour

t mus

t “ex

amin

e th

e tr

ansc

ript a

nd re

cord

of

the

hear

ing

and

shal

l ho

ld su

ch a

dditi

onal

he

arin

gs a

s it c

onsi

ders

ad

visa

ble,

at w

hich

it

may

con

side

r oth

er e

vi-

denc

e in

add

ition

to th

e tr

ansc

ript a

nd re

cord

.” O

hio

Rev.

Cod

e An

n. §

33

19.1

6.

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Okl

ahom

aW

illfu

l neg

lect

of d

uty,

repe

ated

ne

glig

ence

in p

erfo

rman

ce o

f dut

y,

men

tal,

or p

hysi

cal a

buse

to a

chi

ld,

inco

mpe

tenc

y, in

stru

ctio

nal i

nef-

fect

iven

ess,

unsa

tisfa

ctor

y te

achi

ng

perf

orm

ance

, com

mis

sion

of a

n ac

t of

mor

al tu

rpitu

de, f

elon

y co

nvic

-tio

n, c

rimin

al se

xual

act

ivity

, sex

ual

mis

cond

uct,

or a

band

onm

ent o

f co

ntra

ct.

Okl

a. S

tat.

Ann.

Tit.

70

§ 6-

101.

22.

Non

eN

one

In o

rder

to d

ism

iss a

te

ache

r for

poo

r per

for-

man

ce, a

n ad

min

istr

ator

m

ust g

ive

notic

e to

the

teac

her i

n w

ritin

g an

d m

ake

a “r

easo

nabl

e eff

ort”

to re

med

iate

. Th

e te

ache

r the

n ha

s up

to tw

o m

onth

s to

impr

ove.

If th

e te

ache

r do

es n

ot c

orre

ct th

e pr

oble

ms i

n th

e no

tice,

th

e ad

min

istr

ator

can

m

ake

a re

com

men

datio

n to

the

supe

rinte

nden

t for

di

smis

sal o

r non

reem

-pl

oym

ent.

Okl

a. S

tat.

Ann.

Tit.

70

§ 6-

101.

24

The

dist

rict b

oard

con

sid-

ers t

he c

ase.

Okl

. St.A

nn.

Tit.

70 §

6-1

01.2

6.

Non

eTh

e te

ache

r is e

ntitl

ed to

a

tria

l de

novo

in d

istr

ict

cour

t of c

ount

ry w

here

sc

hool

is lo

cate

d. O

kl. S

t. An

n. T

it. 7

0 §

6-10

1.27

.

Ore

gon

Ineffi

cien

cy, i

mm

oral

ity, i

nsub

or-

dina

tion,

neg

lect

of d

uty,

phy

sica

l or

men

tal i

ncap

acity

, con

vict

ion

of a

felo

ny o

r a c

rime,

inad

equa

te

perf

orm

ance

, fai

lure

to c

ompl

y w

ith

reas

onab

le re

quire

men

ts to

show

no

rmal

impr

ovem

ent a

nd e

vide

nce

of p

rofe

ssio

nal t

rain

ing

and

grow

th,

or a

ny c

ause

that

con

stitu

tes

grou

nds f

or th

e re

voca

tion

of a

te

ache

r’s te

achi

ng li

cens

e. O

r. Re

v.

Stat

. § 3

42.8

65.

Non

eAd

min

istr

ator

s sho

uld

cons

ider

regu

lar a

nd

spec

ial e

valu

atio

n re

port

s and

any

writ

ten

stan

dard

s of p

erfo

rman

ce

adop

ted

by th

e bo

ard

in

dete

rmin

ing

whe

ther

the

prof

essi

onal

per

form

ance

of

a c

ontr

act t

each

er is

ad

equa

te.

Or.

Rev.

Sta

t. §

342.

865.

Non

eA

pane

l of t

hree

m

embe

rs fr

om th

e Fa

ir D

ism

issa

l App

eal B

oard

co

nsid

ers t

he c

ase;

the

pane

l con

sist

s of o

ne

mem

ber r

epre

sent

ing

dist

rict s

choo

l boa

rd

mem

bers

, one

mem

ber

unaffi

liate

d w

ith c

om-

mon

or u

nion

hig

h sc

hool

dis

tric

ts, a

nd o

ne

mem

ber r

epre

sent

ing

teac

hers

or a

dmin

istr

a-to

rs. O

r. Re

v. S

tat.

§ 34

2.90

5.

The

Fair

Dis

mis

sal

Appe

als B

oard

pan

el

prep

ares

and

send

s a

writ

ten

deci

sion

to th

e co

ntra

ct te

ache

r, th

e di

s-tr

ict s

uper

inte

nden

t, th

e di

stric

t sch

ool b

oard

, and

th

e su

perin

tend

ent o

f pu

blic

inst

ruct

ion

with

in

140

days

of t

he fi

ling

of

an a

ppea

l. O

r. Re

v. S

tat.

§ 34

2.90

5.

Judi

cial

revi

ew is

ava

il-ab

le in

acc

orda

nce

with

th

e st

ate

adm

inis

tra-

tive

law

. Or.

Rev.

Sta

t. §

342.

905.

44

cent

er fo

r Am

eric

an p

rogr

ess

| D

evil

in t

he D

etai

ls

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Penn

syl-

vani

aIm

mor

ality

, inc

ompe

tenc

y, u

nsat

is-

fact

ory

teac

hing

per

form

ance

bas

ed

on tw

o co

nsec

utiv

e ra

tings

of t

he

empl

oyee

’s te

achi

ng p

erfo

rman

ce

as u

nsat

isfa

ctor

y, in

tem

pera

nce,

cr

uelty

, per

sist

ent n

eglig

ence

in

the

perf

orm

ance

of d

utie

s, w

illfu

l ne

glec

t of d

utie

s, ph

ysic

al o

r m

enta

l dis

abili

ty th

at su

bsta

ntia

lly

inte

rfer

es w

ith th

e em

ploy

ee’s

abil-

ity to

per

form

ess

entia

l fun

ctio

ns,

advo

catin

g or

par

ticip

atin

g in

un-

Amer

ican

or s

ubve

rsiv

e do

ctrin

es,

conv

ictio

n of

a fe

lony

or a

ccep

tanc

e of

a g

uilty

ple

a, o

r per

sist

ent a

nd

will

ful v

iola

tion

of o

r fai

lure

to

com

ply

with

scho

ol la

ws.

Pa. S

tat.

Ann.

Tit.

24

§ 11

-112

2.

Inco

mpe

tenc

e is

not

de

fined

in th

e st

atut

e.

But u

nsat

isfa

ctor

y te

ach-

ing

perf

orm

ance

is b

ased

on

two

cons

ecut

ive

ratin

gs o

f the

em

ploy

ee’s

teac

hing

per

form

ance

th

at a

re to

incl

ude

clas

sroo

m o

bser

va-

tions

no

less

than

four

m

onth

s apa

rt in

whi

ch

the

empl

oyee

’s te

achi

ng

perf

orm

ance

is ra

ted

as

unsa

tisfa

ctor

y. P

a. S

tat.

Ann.

Tit.

24

§ 11

-112

2.

Non

eTw

o co

nsec

utiv

e un

satis

fact

ory

ratin

gs

are

requ

ired

to d

ism

iss

a te

ache

r for

uns

atis

fac-

tory

teac

hing

per

for-

man

ce, b

ut th

e la

w d

oes

not s

peci

fy w

heth

er

dism

issa

l is r

equi

red

afte

r re

ceiv

ing

two

nega

tive

eval

uatio

ns. P

a. C

ode

351.

26.

The

boar

d of

scho

ol

dire

ctor

s con

side

rs th

e ca

se, o

r the

cas

e un

der-

goes

arb

itrat

ion

unde

r th

e co

llect

ive

barg

ain-

ing

cont

ract

. Pa.

Sta

t. An

n. T

it. 2

4 §1

1-11

27, §

11

-113

3.

Non

eTh

e em

ploy

ee m

ay

appe

al to

the

supe

rinte

n-de

nt o

f pub

lic in

stru

ctio

n w

ithin

30

days

of t

he

boar

d de

cisi

on. A

hea

r-in

g m

ust b

e he

ld w

ithin

30

day

s of r

ecei

pt o

f the

re

ques

t for

the

appe

al.

Pa. S

tat.

Ann.

tit.

24 §

11

-113

1.

An a

ppea

l is t

aken

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith th

e st

ate’s

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Proc

edur

es A

ct. P

a. S

tat.

Ann.

Tit.

24

§ 11

-113

2.

Rhod

e Is

land

Goo

d an

d ju

st c

ause

R.I.

Gen

. Law

s §

16-1

3-3.

Non

eN

one

Non

eTh

e go

vern

ing

boar

d co

nsid

ers t

he c

ase,

al

thou

gh th

e di

stric

t may

ag

ree

to a

rbitr

atio

n in

th

e co

llect

ive

barg

ain-

ing

agre

emen

t. R.

I. G

en.

Law

s § 1

6-13

-4.

Non

eTh

e D

epar

tmen

t of

Elem

enta

ry a

nd S

econ

d-ar

y Ed

ucat

ion

hear

s the

ap

peal

, and

the

teac

her

has t

he ri

ght o

f fur

ther

ap

peal

to th

e su

perio

r co

urt.

R.I.

Gen

. Law

s §

16-1

3-4.

Sout

h Ca

rolin

aFa

ilure

to g

ive

inst

ruct

ion

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith th

e di

rect

ions

of

the

supe

rinte

nden

t or e

xhib

iting

ev

iden

t unfi

tnes

s for

teac

hing

. Evi

-de

nt u

nfitn

ess f

or te

achi

ng in

clud

es

pers

iste

nt n

egle

ct o

f dut

y, w

illfu

l vi

olat

ion

of ru

les a

nd re

gula

tions

of

dist

rict b

oard

of t

rust

ees,

drun

ken-

ness

, con

vict

ion

of a

vio

latio

n of

a

stat

e or

fede

ral l

aw, g

ross

imm

oral

-ity

, dis

hone

sty,

or i

llega

l use

, sal

e or

po

sses

sion

of d

rugs

or n

arco

tics.

S.C.

Cod

e An

n. §

59-

25-4

30.

Non

eN

one

An a

nnua

l con

trac

t te

ache

r who

has

not

suc-

cess

fully

com

plet

ed th

e fo

rmal

eva

luat

ion

pro-

cess

or t

he p

rofe

ssio

nal

grow

th p

lan

for t

he

seco

nd ti

me

mus

t not

be

empl

oyed

as a

cla

ssro

om

teac

her i

n a

publ

ic

scho

ol fo

r a m

inim

um o

f tw

o ye

ars.

S.C.

Cod

e An

n.

§ 59

-26-

40.

The

dist

rict b

oard

of

trus

tees

con

side

rs th

e ca

se.

S.C.

Cod

e An

n. §

59-

25-

470

Non

eCo

urt o

f com

mon

ple

as

hear

s the

app

eal.

S.C.

Co

de A

nn. §

59-

25-4

80.

45

App

endi

x |

ww

w.a

mer

ican

prog

ress

.org

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Sout

h D

akot

aJu

st c

ause

, inc

ludi

ng b

reac

h of

co

ntra

ct, p

oor p

erfo

rman

ce, i

ncom

-pe

tenc

y, g

ross

imm

oral

ity, u

npro

fes-

sion

al c

ondu

ct, i

nsub

ordi

natio

n,

negl

ect o

f dut

y, o

r the

vio

latio

n of

any

pol

icy

or re

gula

tion

of th

e sc

hool

dis

tric

t.

S.D.

Cod

ified

Law

s § 1

3-43

-6.1

.

Non

eN

one

Non

eTh

e sc

hool

boa

rd c

onsi

d-er

s cas

es o

f ter

min

atio

n an

d no

nren

ewal

. S.D

. Co

difie

d La

ws §

13-

43-

6.2,

6.7

.

Non

eTh

e ci

rcui

t cou

rt h

ears

th

e ap

peal

.

S.D.

Cod

ified

Law

s §

13-4

6-1.

Tenn

esse

eIn

com

pete

nce,

ineffi

cien

cy, n

egle

ct

of d

uty,

unp

rofe

ssio

nal c

ondu

ct,

and

insu

bord

inat

ion

Tenn

. Cod

e An

n. §

49-

5-51

1.

Inco

mpe

tenc

e is

defin

ed

as “b

eing

inca

pabl

e,

lack

ing

adeq

uate

pow

er,

capa

city

or a

bilit

y to

carr

y ou

t the

dut

ies a

nd re

spon

-sib

ilitie

s of t

he p

ositi

on.

This

may

app

ly to

phy

sical

, m

enta

l, edu

catio

nal, e

mo-

tiona

l or o

ther

per

sona

l co

nditi

ons.

It m

ay in

clud

e la

ck o

f tra

inin

g or

exp

eri-

ence

, evi

dent

unfi

tnes

s for

se

rvic

e, a

phy

sical

, men

tal

or e

mot

iona

l con

ditio

n m

akin

g th

e te

ache

r unfi

t to

inst

ruct

or a

ssoc

iate

w

ith ch

ildre

n or

the

inab

il-ity

to co

mm

unic

ate

and

resp

ect f

rom

subo

rdin

ates

or

to se

cure

coop

erat

ion

of th

ose

with

who

m th

e te

ache

r mus

t wor

k.”

Ineffi

cien

cy: “

bein

g be

low

the

stan

dard

s of

effici

ency

mai

ntai

ned

by

othe

rs cu

rrent

ly e

mpl

oyed

by

the

boar

d fo

r sim

ilar

wor

k, o

r hab

itual

ly ta

rdy,

in

accu

rate

or w

antin

g in

eff

ectiv

e pe

rform

ance

of

dutie

s.” Te

nn. C

ode

Ann.

§

49-5

-501

.

Non

eN

one

An im

part

ial h

earin

g offi

-ce

r sel

ecte

d by

the

boar

d co

nsid

ers t

he c

ase.

Tenn

. Co

de A

nn. §

49-

5-51

2.

Non

eTh

e ap

peal

goe

s firs

t to

the

boar

d of

edu

catio

n,

then

the

chan

cery

cou

rt

hear

s the

app

eal;

the

revi

ew is

de

novo

on

the

reco

rd o

f the

hea

ring

cond

ucte

d by

the

hear

-in

g offi

cer a

nd re

view

ed

by th

e bo

ard.

Tenn

. Cod

e An

n. §

49-

5-51

2.

46

cent

er fo

r Am

eric

an p

rogr

ess

| D

evil

in t

he D

etai

ls

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Texa

sN

eces

sary

redu

ctio

n in

staff

or g

ood

caus

e. G

ood

caus

e is

defi

ned

as “t

he

failu

re to

mee

t the

acc

epte

d st

an-

dard

s of c

ondu

ct fo

r the

pro

fess

ion

as g

ener

ally

reco

gniz

ed a

nd a

pplie

d in

sim

ilarly

situ

ated

scho

ol d

istr

icts

” in

Texa

s. Te

x. E

duc.

Cod

e An

n. §

21

.154

, 21.

156.

Non

eN

one

Unc

lear

; tea

cher

s may

be

elig

ible

for “

sepa

ratio

n”

afte

r not

mee

ting

all o

f th

e re

quire

men

ts o

f an

inte

rven

tion

plan

for

teac

hers

in n

eed

of a

ssis

-ta

nce

by th

e tim

e sp

eci-

fied.

Texa

s Adm

inis

trat

ive

Code

150

.100

4.

A he

arin

g offi

cer (

an

atto

rney

) cer

tified

by

the

stat

e co

nsid

ers t

he c

ase.

Te

x. E

duc.

Cod

e An

n. §

21

.252

.

The

hear

ing

mus

t con

-cl

ude

with

in 6

0 da

ys o

f co

mm

issi

oner

’s re

ceip

t of

requ

est f

or th

e he

arin

g.

Both

par

ties m

ay c

hoos

e to

ext

end

the

date

up

to

45 d

ays.

Tex.

Edu

c. C

ode

Ann.

§ 2

1.25

7.

Texa

s rul

es o

f evi

denc

e ap

ply

and

hear

ings

are

co

nduc

ted

the

sam

e as

a

tria

l with

out a

jury

. Tex

. Ed

uc. C

ode

Ann.

§21

.256

.

Appe

al to

com

mis

-si

oner

of e

duca

tion;

the

com

mis

sion

er c

onsi

ders

th

e ap

peal

sole

ly o

n th

e ba

sis o

f the

loca

l rec

ord

and

may

not

con

side

r an

y ad

ditio

nal e

vide

nce

or is

sues

. The

dis

tric

t co

urt h

ears

app

eals

fr

om th

e Co

mm

issi

oner

’s de

cisi

on. T

ex. E

duc.

Cod

e An

n. §

21.3

01 §

21.

307.

Uta

hBe

havi

or e

xhib

iting

unfi

tnes

s for

du

ty th

roug

h im

mor

al, u

npro

fes-

sion

al, o

r inc

ompe

tent

con

duct

; co

mm

ittin

g an

y ot

her v

iola

tion

of

stan

dard

s of e

thic

al c

ondu

ct, p

erfo

r-m

ance

, or p

rofe

ssio

nal c

ompe

tenc

e.

Uta

h Co

de A

nn. §

53A

-8-1

04; §

53

-6-5

01.

Non

eTo

term

inat

e a

cont

act f

or

unsa

tisfa

ctor

y pe

rfor

-m

ance

, the

uns

atis

fact

ory

perf

orm

ance

mus

t be

docu

men

ted

in a

t lea

st

two

eval

uatio

ns c

on-

duct

ed a

t any

tim

e w

ithin

th

e pr

eced

ing

thre

e ye

ars.

Uta

h Co

de A

nn. §

53

A-8-

104.

Non

eTh

e bo

ard

or h

earin

g offi

cer s

elec

ted

by th

e bo

ard

cons

ider

s the

ca

se.

Uta

h Co

de A

nn. §

53

A-8-

105.

Non

eAn

“app

ropr

iate

cou

rt o

f la

w” h

ears

the

appe

al.

Uta

h Co

de A

nn. §

53A

-8-

105.

Verm

ont

To n

onre

new

a c

ontr

act:

just

and

su

ffici

ent c

ause

. To

dism

iss:

inco

m-

pete

nce,

con

duct

unb

ecom

ing

a te

ache

r, fa

ilure

to a

tten

d to

dut

ies,

or fa

ilure

to c

arry

out

reas

onab

le

orde

rs a

nd d

irect

ions

of t

he su

per-

inte

nden

t and

scho

ol b

oard

. Vt.

Stat

. An

n. T

it. 1

6, §

175

2.

Non

eN

one

Non

eTh

e bo

ard

of sc

hool

di

rect

ors c

onsi

ders

the

case

. Vt.

Stat

. Ann

. Tit.

16,

§

1752

.

Non

eN

ot a

vaila

ble

47

App

endi

x |

ww

w.a

mer

ican

prog

ress

.org

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Texa

sN

eces

sary

redu

ctio

n in

staff

or g

ood

caus

e. G

ood

caus

e is

defi

ned

as “t

he

failu

re to

mee

t the

acc

epte

d st

an-

dard

s of c

ondu

ct fo

r the

pro

fess

ion

as g

ener

ally

reco

gniz

ed a

nd a

pplie

d in

sim

ilarly

situ

ated

scho

ol d

istr

icts

” in

Texa

s. Te

x. E

duc.

Cod

e An

n. §

21

.154

, 21.

156.

Non

eN

one

Unc

lear

; tea

cher

s may

be

elig

ible

for “

sepa

ratio

n”

afte

r not

mee

ting

all o

f th

e re

quire

men

ts o

f an

inte

rven

tion

plan

for

teac

hers

in n

eed

of a

ssis

-ta

nce

by th

e tim

e sp

eci-

fied.

Texa

s Adm

inis

trat

ive

Code

150

.100

4.

A he

arin

g offi

cer (

an

atto

rney

) cer

tified

by

the

stat

e co

nsid

ers t

he c

ase.

Te

x. E

duc.

Cod

e An

n. §

21

.252

.

The

hear

ing

mus

t con

-cl

ude

with

in 6

0 da

ys o

f co

mm

issi

oner

’s re

ceip

t of

requ

est f

or th

e he

arin

g.

Both

par

ties m

ay c

hoos

e to

ext

end

the

date

up

to

45 d

ays.

Tex.

Edu

c. C

ode

Ann.

§ 2

1.25

7.

Texa

s rul

es o

f evi

denc

e ap

ply

and

hear

ings

are

co

nduc

ted

the

sam

e as

a

tria

l with

out a

jury

. Tex

. Ed

uc. C

ode

Ann.

§21

.256

.

Appe

al to

com

mis

-si

oner

of e

duca

tion;

the

com

mis

sion

er c

onsi

ders

th

e ap

peal

sole

ly o

n th

e ba

sis o

f the

loca

l rec

ord

and

may

not

con

side

r an

y ad

ditio

nal e

vide

nce

or is

sues

. The

dis

tric

t co

urt h

ears

app

eals

fr

om th

e Co

mm

issi

oner

’s de

cisi

on. T

ex. E

duc.

Cod

e An

n. §

21.3

01 §

21.

307.

Uta

hBe

havi

or e

xhib

iting

unfi

tnes

s for

du

ty th

roug

h im

mor

al, u

npro

fes-

sion

al, o

r inc

ompe

tent

con

duct

; co

mm

ittin

g an

y ot

her v

iola

tion

of

stan

dard

s of e

thic

al c

ondu

ct, p

erfo

r-m

ance

, or p

rofe

ssio

nal c

ompe

tenc

e.

Uta

h Co

de A

nn. §

53A

-8-1

04; §

53

-6-5

01.

Non

eTo

term

inat

e a

cont

act f

or

unsa

tisfa

ctor

y pe

rfor

-m

ance

, the

uns

atis

fact

ory

perf

orm

ance

mus

t be

docu

men

ted

in a

t lea

st

two

eval

uatio

ns c

on-

duct

ed a

t any

tim

e w

ithin

th

e pr

eced

ing

thre

e ye

ars.

Uta

h Co

de A

nn. §

53

A-8-

104.

Non

eTh

e bo

ard

or h

earin

g offi

cer s

elec

ted

by th

e bo

ard

cons

ider

s the

ca

se.

Uta

h Co

de A

nn. §

53

A-8-

105.

Non

eAn

“app

ropr

iate

cou

rt o

f la

w” h

ears

the

appe

al.

Uta

h Co

de A

nn. §

53A

-8-

105.

Verm

ont

To n

onre

new

a c

ontr

act:

just

and

su

ffici

ent c

ause

. To

dism

iss:

inco

m-

pete

nce,

con

duct

unb

ecom

ing

a te

ache

r, fa

ilure

to a

tten

d to

dut

ies,

or fa

ilure

to c

arry

out

reas

onab

le

orde

rs a

nd d

irect

ions

of t

he su

per-

inte

nden

t and

scho

ol b

oard

. Vt.

Stat

. An

n. T

it. 1

6, §

175

2.

Non

eN

one

Non

eTh

e bo

ard

of sc

hool

di

rect

ors c

onsi

ders

the

case

. Vt.

Stat

. Ann

. Tit.

16,

§

1752

.

Non

eN

ot a

vaila

ble

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Virg

inia

Inco

mpe

tenc

y, im

mor

ality

, non

-co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith sc

hool

law

s and

re

gula

tions

, dis

abili

ty a

s sho

wn

by

com

pete

nt m

edic

al e

vide

nce

whe

n in

com

plia

nce

with

fede

ral l

aw,

conv

ictio

n of

a fe

lony

or a

crim

e of

m

oral

turp

itude

, or o

ther

goo

d an

d ju

st c

ause

. Va.

Cod

e An

n. §

22.

1-30

7.

Inco

mpe

tenc

y in

clud

es

a “c

onsi

sten

t fai

lure

to

mee

t the

end

orse

men

t re

quire

men

ts fo

r the

po

sitio

n or

per

form

ance

th

at is

doc

umen

ted

thro

ugh

eval

uatio

n to

be

con

sist

ently

less

than

sa

tisfa

ctor

y.” V

a. C

ode

Ann.

§ 2

2.1-

307.

Non

eN

one

The

scho

ol b

oard

or

teac

her c

an e

lect

to h

ave

a he

arin

g in

fron

t of a

th

ree-

mem

ber f

act-

find-

ing

pane

l joi

ntly

sele

cted

by

the

supe

rinte

nden

t an

d te

ache

r prio

r to

the

scho

ol b

oard

con

side

ring

the

case

. Va.

Cod

e An

n. §

§2

2.1-

311;

§22

.1-3

12.

The

pane

l hea

ring

mus

t oc

cur “

with

in 3

0 bu

sine

ss

days

” aft

er th

e pa

nel i

s co

nven

ed. V

a. C

ode

Ann.

§

§22.

1-31

2.

If a

pane

l con

duct

s the

he

arin

g, th

e pa

nel m

ust

issu

e a

writ

ten

repo

rt

with

find

ings

of f

act

and

a re

com

men

datio

n to

the

boar

d no

late

r th

an 3

0 da

ys a

fter

the

hear

ing.

Va.

Cod

e An

n. §

§2

2.1-

312.

If th

e sc

hool

boa

rd

cond

ucts

the

hear

ing,

th

e bo

ard

mus

t giv

e th

e te

ache

r its

writ

ten

deci

sion

no

late

r tha

n 30

da

ys a

fter

the

hear

ing.

Va

. Cod

e An

n. §

22.

1-31

3.

The

circ

uit c

ourt

hea

rs

the

appe

al a

nd m

ay

rece

ive

othe

r evi

denc

e as

the

ends

of j

ustic

e re

quire

. Va.

Cod

e An

n. §

22

.1-3

14.

Was

hing

-to

nPr

obab

le c

ause

. Was

h. R

ev. C

ode

§ 28

A.40

5.21

0.N

one

Non

eA

teac

her w

ho re

ceiv

es

an u

nsat

isfa

ctor

y ev

alua

tion

is p

ut o

n an

im

prov

emen

t pro

gram

. If

the

teac

her d

oes n

ot

show

impr

ovem

ent

durin

g th

e 60

-day

pr

obat

iona

ry p

erio

d, th

is

may

con

stitu

te a

find

ing

of “p

roba

ble

caus

e”

unde

r the

dis

mis

sal

stat

ute.

Was

h. R

ev. C

ode

§28A

.405

.100

.

A he

arin

g offi

cer (

law

yer

or a

rbitr

ator

) nom

inat

ed

by a

ppoi

ntee

s of t

he

teac

her a

nd sc

hool

boa

rd

or n

omin

ated

by

the

pres

idin

g ju

dge

of th

e di

stric

t con

side

rs th

e ca

se. W

ash.

Rev

. Cod

e §2

8A.4

05.3

10.

The

hear

ing

office

r mus

t is

sue

findi

ngs o

f fac

t, co

nclu

sion

s of l

aw, a

nd a

fin

al d

ecis

ion

with

in 1

0 da

ys o

f the

con

clus

ion

of

the

hear

ing.

Was

h. R

ev.

Code

§ 2

8A.4

05.3

10.

The

supe

rior c

ourt

in

the

coun

ty in

whi

ch

the

scho

ol d

istr

ict i

s lo

cate

d he

ars t

he a

ppea

l “e

xped

itiou

sly.”

Was

h.

Rev.

Cod

e §2

8A.4

05.3

40.

48

cent

er fo

r Am

eric

an p

rogr

ess

| D

evil

in t

he D

etai

ls

App

endi

x

Stat

eRe

ason

s fo

r dis

mis

sal

Def

init

ion

of in

com

pe-

tenc

e or

inef

fect

iven

ess

Proc

edur

es fo

r dis

mis

sal

due

to in

effe

ctiv

enes

s

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

unsa

tisf

acto

ry e

valu

a-ti

ons

and

dism

issa

l D

istr

ict-

leve

l fac

t fin

der

Spec

ial h

earin

g ru

les

or

regu

lati

ons

App

eals

pro

cess

Wes

t Vi

rgin

iaIm

mor

ality

, inc

ompe

tenc

y, c

ruel

ty,

insu

bord

inat

ion,

inte

mpe

ranc

e,

will

ful n

egle

ct o

f dut

y, u

nsat

isfa

c-to

ry p

erfo

rman

ce, c

onvi

ctio

n of

a

felo

ny, o

r a g

uilty

ple

a or

a p

lea

of

nolo

con

tend

ere

to a

felo

ny c

harg

e.

W. V

a. C

ode

§ 18

A-2-

8.

Non

eA

char

ge o

f uns

atis

fact

ory

perf

orm

ance

can

onl

y be

mad

e as

a re

sult

of a

n em

ploy

ee p

erfo

rman

ce

eval

uatio

n. W

. Va.

Cod

e §

18A-

2-8.

A te

ache

r who

rece

ives

a

writ

ten

impr

ovem

ent

plan

will

be

give

n an

op

port

unity

to im

prov

e th

eir p

erfo

rman

ce

thro

ugh

the

plan

. If t

he

next

eva

luat

ion

show

s th

at th

e te

ache

r is s

till

not p

erfo

rmin

g sa

tisfa

c-to

rily,

the

eval

uato

r may

re

com

men

d di

smis

sal.

W.

Va. C

ode

§ 18

A-2-

12 (h

).

An a

dmin

istr

ativ

e la

w

judg

e co

nduc

ts le

vel-

thre

e he

arin

gs. W

. Va.

Co

de §

6C-

2-4;

W. V

a.

Code

§ 1

8A-2

-8.

The

adm

inis

trat

ive

law

judg

e m

ust i

ssue

a

deci

sion

with

in 3

0 da

ys

follo

win

g th

e he

arin

g. W

. Va

. Cod

e §

6C-2

-4.

The

circ

uit c

ourt

con

sid-

ers a

ppea

ls. W

. Va.

Cod

e §

6C-2

-5.

Wis

cons

inIn

effici

ency

or i

mm

oral

ity, w

illfu

l an

d pe

rsis

tent

vio

latio

n of

reas

on-

able

regu

latio

ns, o

r oth

er g

ood

caus

e. T

his o

nly

appl

ies t

o te

ache

rs

in c

erta

in d

istr

icts

und

er th

is se

c-tio

n. W

is. S

tat.

§ 11

8.23

.

Non

eN

one

Non

eTh

e go

vern

ing

body

of

the

scho

ol sy

stem

or

scho

ol c

onsi

ders

the

case

. Wis

. Sta

t. §

118.

23.

Non

eTh

e go

vern

ing

boar

d’s

deci

sion

is fi

nal.

Wis

. Sta

t. §1

18.2

3 .

Wyo

min

gIn

com

pete

ncy,

neg

lect

of d

uty,

im

mor

ality

, ins

ubor

dina

tion,

uns

at-

isfa

ctor

y pe

rfor

man

ce, o

r any

oth

er

good

or j

ust c

ause

. Wyo

. Sta

t. An

n.

§ 21

-7-1

10.

Non

eN

one

Non

eA

join

tly se

lect

ed in

de-

pend

ent h

earin

g offi

cer

who

is “i

mpa

rtia

l, ex

peri-

ence

d in

edu

catio

n, la

bor

and

empl

oym

ent m

at-

ters

and

in th

e co

nduc

t of

hea

rings

” con

side

rs

the

case

. Wyo

. Sta

t. An

n.

§ 21

-7-1

10.

The

hear

ing

office

r m

ust i

ssue

find

ings

an

d re

com

men

datio

ns

with

in 2

0 da

ys fo

llow

ing

the

conc

lusi

on o

f the

he

arin

g. W

yo. S

tat.

Ann.

§

21-7

-110

.

The

dist

rict c

ourt

con

sid-

ers t

he a

ppea

l, ta

ken

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e W

yom

ing

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Proc

edur

e Ac

t. W

yo. S

tat.

Ann.

§ 2

1-7-

110.

Endnotes | www.americanprogress.org 49

Endnotes

1 Length of hearings, legal expenses, union opposition and many other barriers to removing teachers have been reported across the county for many years. For examples, please see: Jason song, “Firing teachers can be a costly and tortuous task,” LA Times, May 3, 2009, available at http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/03/local/me-teachers3; Jason song, “school Board Members Acknowledge swifter Firings are Needed,” LA Times, May 13, 2009, available at http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/13/local/me-teachers13; scott Reeder, “tenure Frustrates Drive for teacher Accountability,” small Newspaper Group springfield Bureau, available at http://thehidden-costsoftenure.com/stories/?prcss=display&id=266539; stacy Brandt, “Firing teachers can be a headache for Districts,” North County Times, November 25, 2007, available at http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_e6c5a19c-7770-553d-9cab-8763359f0208.html; William Gillespie, “Want to Fix Education? Fire Bad teachers,” Business Lexington, February 16, 2010, available at http://www.bizlex.com/Articles-c-2010-02-16-91427.113117_Want_to_fix_education_Fire_bad_teachers.html

2 steven Brill, “the Rubber Room: the Battle over New York city’s Worst teachers,” The New Yorker, August 31, 2009, available at http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill.

3 the White house office of the press secretary, “Remarks by presi-dent Barack obama to the U.s. hispanic chamber of commerce on a complete and competitive American Education,” March 10, 2009, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-the-president-to-the-United-states-hispanic-chamber-of-commerce; U.s. Department of Education, “partners in Reform: Remarks by Arne Duncan to the National Education Association,” July 2, 2009, available at http://www2.ed.gov/news/speech-es/2009/07/07022009.html.

4 stephen sawchuk, “AFt chief Vows to Revise teacher-Dismissal process,” Education Week, January 12, 2010, available at http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/01/12/18aft_ep.h29.html?tkn=WUpFDN0hFvRY7faLop+zyoiiF4i26kioGtDD.

5 patrick McGuinn, “Ringing the Bell for k-12 teacher tenure Reform” (Washington: center for American progress, 2010); Robin chait, “Removing chronically ineffective teachers: Barriers and oppor-tunities” (Washington: center for American progress, 2010); Joan Baratz-snowden, “Fixing tenure: A proposal for Assuring teacher Effectiveness and Due process” (Washington: center for American progress, 2009).

6 the civil Rights Act of 1964 protects teachers at public schools from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. 42 U.s.c. et seq. (2000).

7 See David J. strom and stephanie s. Baxter, “From the statehouse to the schoolhouse: how Legislatures and courts shaped Labor Relations for public Education Employees During the Last Decade,” Journal of Law and Education 30 (2) (2001): 275-304.

8 thomas A. kersten, “teacher tenure: illinois school Board presidents’ perspective and suggestions for improvement,” Planning and Chang-ing 37 (3-4) (2006): 234-257.

9 For more information on the iMpAct system, see District of colum-bia public schools, “iMpAct Guidebooks,” available at http://dcps.dc.gov/Dcps/in+the+classroom/Ensuring+teacher+success/iMpAct+%28performance+Assessment%29/iMpAct+Guidebooks/iMpAct+Guidebooks.

10 Jason song, “L.A. Unified plans to Fire More Non-tenured teachers than Usual,” LA Times, February 10, 2010, available at http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/10/local/la-me-lausd-teachers10-2010feb10.

11 , National center for Education statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, “public school District Data File,” (U.s. Department of Education, 2007-08); McGuinn, “Ringing the Bell for k-12 teacher tenure Reform,” table 8.

12 McGuinn, “Ringing the Bell for k-12 teacher tenure Reform.”

13 Louis Fischer, David schimmel, and Leslie R. stellman, Teachers and the Law, 7 ed. (Boston: pearson Education, inc. 2007).

14 Emily cohen, kate Walsh, and Rishawn Biddle, “invisible ink in col-lective Bargaining: Why key issues Are Not Addressed” (Washington: National council on teacher Quality, 2008), 8.

15 Fischer, schimmel, and stellman, Teachers and the Law, p. 35.

16 ibid.

17 ibid.

18 ibid. see also David L. Dagley and carole A. Veir, “subverting the Academic Abstention Doctrine in teacher Evaluation: how school Reform Legislation Defeats itself,” Brigham Young University Educa-tion and Law Journal 123 (1) (2002). For example, Minnesota state law requires: “A contract must not be terminated unless the teacher fails to correct the deficiency after being given written notice of the specific items of complaint and reasonable time within which to remedy them.” Minn. stat. Ann. § 122A.40.

19 Dagley and Veir, “subverting the Academic Abstention Doctrine in teacher Evaluation: how school Reform Legislation Defeats itself.”

20 cal. Educ. code § 44938.

21 Dagley and Veir, “subverting the Academic Abstention Doctrine in teacher Evaluation: how school Reform Legislation Defeats itself.”

22 consuelo G. Lopez and David J. sperry, “the Use of hearing officers in public Educator termination Actions,” West’s Education Law Quar-terly 4 (2) (1995): 210-238.

23 Brill, “the Rubber Room: the Battle over New York city’s Worst teachers”; chait, “Removing chronically ineffective teachers: Barriers and opportunities.”

24 For example, see ohio Rev. code Ann. § 3319.161.

25 colo. Rev. stat. § 22-63-302(5)(b).

26 For example, see illinois Administrative code 51, title 23, subtitle A, chapter i, subchapter b, part 51: Dismissal of tenured teachers Under Article 24 and Dismissal of tenured teachers and principals Under Article 34 of the school code.

27 For example, see N.M. stat. Ann. § 22-10A-28; cal. Educ. code § 44944.

28 kan. stat. Ann. § 72-5442.

29 Ariz. Rev. stat. § 15-542 (b).

50 center for American progress | Devil in the Details

30 colo. Rev. stat. § 22-63-302 (7)(e).

31 henry G. stewart and sally L. Adams, “Arbitration of teacher Dismissals and other Discipline Under the Education Reform Act,” Massachusetts Law Review 83 (1998).

32 For example, Mo. Rev. stat. 168.118 (7).

33 Ala. § code 16-24-10(a).

34 Nev. Rev. stat. § 391.3193.

35 colo. Rev. stat. § 22-63-302(7)(e).

36 personal communication from Wanda Barrs, chair, Georgia state Board of Education, February 1, 2010.

37 Dagley and Veir, “subverting the Academic Abstention Doctrine in teacher Evaluation: how school Reform Legislation Defeats itself.”

38 National center for Education statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, “public school District Data File” (U.s. Department of Education, 2007-08); McGuinn, “Ringing the Bell for k-12 teacher tenure Reform,” table 8.

39 Daniel Weisberg and others, “the Widget Effect: our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in teacher Effectiveness” (New York: the New teacher project, 2009).

40 For example, Nevada state law lists nineteen possible reasons for dismissal (Nev. Rev. stat. § 391.312) including “advocating [the] overthrow of the Government of the United states or the state of Nevada” while Washington requires only “probable cause” for dismissal (Wash. Rev. code § 28A.405.210).

41 Ga. code Ann. § 20-2-940.

42 National council on teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Year-book (2010), Figure 124.

43 N.Y. Educ. Law § 3020-a(2)(c).

44 For example, see Rogers v. Board of Educ. of City of New Haven, 252 conn. 753, 749 A.2d 1173 (conn. 2000).

45 A principal in Los Angeles characterized dismissal for incompetence in the following way: “one of the toughest things to document, ironically, is [teachers’] ability to teach. … it’s an amorphous thing.” song, “Firing teachers can be a costly and tortuous task.”

46 personal communications from Mary Jo McGrath, founder and president of McGrath systems, inc., December 22, 2009, January 20, 2010.

47 pa. stat. Ann. tit. 24 § 11-1122.

48 According to the National council on teacher Quality, only three states (Montana, Rhode island, and south Dakota) and the District of columbia have no law or policy on evaluation. National council on teacher Quality, 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, Figure 62.

49 ibid., Figure 121.

50 ibid., Figure 65.

51 song, “Firing teachers can be a costly and tortuous task.”

52 cal. Educ. code § 44938.

53 Dagley and Veir, “subverting the Academic Abstention Doctrine in teacher Evaluation: how school Reform Legislation Defeats itself.”

54 Alaska stat. § 14.20.149.

55 ibid.

56 ibid.

57 National council on teacher Quality, “teacher Rules, Roles, and Rights (custom Report),” available at http://www.nctq.org/tr3/search.jsp.

58 New York school Boards Association, “Accountability for All: 5 Ways to Reform the teacher Discipline process” (2007).

59 For example, see the process for selecting a hearing officer in con-necticut. conn. Gen. stat. § 10-151.

60 this practice can vary widely by state. For more information see Na-tional council on teacher Quality, “teacher, Rules, Roles, and Rights (custom Report).”

61 Emily cohen, kate Walsh and Rishawn Biddle, “invisible ink in col-lective Bargaining: Why key issues Are Not Addressed” (Washington: National council on teacher Quality, 2008).

62 contract between Los Angeles Unified school District and United teachers Los Angeles 2006-2009, available at http://www.utla.net/utla/LAUsD_coNtRActs/2006_2009_contract2.pdf.

63 Jennifer Medina, “progress slow in city Goal to Fire Bad teachers,” The New York Times, February 23, 2010.

64 personal communication from Mary Jo McGrath.

65 personal communication from Andrew Rosen, executive director of employee relations, school District of philadelphia, January 26, 2010.

66 For example, the current contract between the Washington, Dc, teachers’ Union and District of columbia public schools allows a teacher to “challenge an alleged violation of the evaluation proce-dure” through the union’s grievance process. collective Bargaining Agreement between the Washington teachers’ Union and District of columbia public schools, available at http://www.wtulocal6.org/pdf/contract.pdf.

67 see e.g., Letter Agreement between New York Department of Edu-cation and United Federation of teachers, April 15, 2010, available at http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/DE11FD24-AF3c-4323-Ac6E-DFAc53D43B05/0/RubberRoomAgreement.pdf.

68 Weisberg and others, “the Widget Effect: our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in teacher Effectiveness.”

69 14 DE Admin. code 106A (8.2) (effective 7/11/2011).

70 susan Moore Johnson and others, “A User’s Guide to peer Assistance and Review,” The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers (cam-bridge, MA: harvard Graduate school of Education, 2008), available at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/par/parinfo/.

71 ibid.

72 colorado state General Assembly Legislative council, “study of teacher Evaluation and Dismissal: Recommendation for 199B” (1997).

73 ibid.

Acknowledgements and about the author | www.americanprogress.org 51

Acknowledgements

The Center for American Progress thanks the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for generously providing support for this paper.

The author would like to thank Florence Chapin of the New York City Department of Education and Professor David Schimmel for their assistance, review, and feedback on the paper. The author would also like to thank Robin Chait, Cynthia Brown, and Raegen Miller of CAP for their invaluable review and feedback. The author would like to thank the following individuals for participating in interviews and offering their expert knowledge and experience on the topic: Jason Kamras, Wanda Barrs, Andrew Rosen, David Schimmel, Mary Jo McGrath, and Brad Jupp. Finally, the author thanks Dr. Sofia Martos for her helpful research assistance.

About the author

Saba Bireda comes to American Progress from Philadelphia, where she was a Philadelphia Bar Foundation Fellow with the Education Law Center. As a fel-low, she worked on several education policy issues, including school climate and discipline, charter schools, teacher quality, and high school graduation exams. Her efforts included administrative and legislative advocacy, producing fact sheets and reports, and litigation. Bireda also gained legal experience as an associate in the corporate litigation department of Morgan Lewis and Bockius. Bireda began her career as a middle school English teacher with Teach for America at Sousa Middle School in Washington, D.C. She has also worked with several other education advocacy organizations including the Building Educated Leaders for Life afterschool program, or B.E.L.L., the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana, and the Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative in Boston. Bireda received her J.D. from Harvard Law School and a B.A. from Stanford University.

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

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

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

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

We work to find progressive and pragmatic solutions to significant domestic and

international problems and develop policy proposals that foster a government that

is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

1333 H Street, NW, 10tH Floor, WaSHiNgtoN, DC 20005 • tel: 202-682-1611 • Fax: 202-682-1867 • WWW.ameriCaNprogreSS.org