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